Re: [PATCH 1/2] drm/mediatek/hdmi: Use syscon_regmap_lookup_by_phandle_args

[AngeloGioacchino Del Regno]

Il 13/01/25 15:31, Krzysztof Kozlowski ha scritto:
> On 13/01/2025 15:27, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote:
> > On 13/01/2025 14:58, AngeloGioacchino Del Regno wrote:
> > > Il 13/01/25 14:05, Krzysztof Kozlowski ha scritto:
> > > > On 13/01/2025 13:41, AngeloGioacchino Del Regno wrote:
> > > > > Il 12/01/25 14:47, Krzysztof Kozlowski ha scritto:
> > > > > > Use syscon_regmap_lookup_by_phandle_args() which is a wrapper over
> > > > > > syscon_regmap_lookup_by_phandle() combined with getting the syscon
> > > > > > argument.  Except simpler code this annotates within one line that given
> > > > > > phandle has arguments, so grepping for code would be easier.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > There is also no real benefit in printing errors on missing syscon
> > > > > > argument, because this is done just too late: runtime check on
> > > > > > static/build-time data.  Dtschema and Devicetree bindings offer the
> > > > > > static/build-time check for this already.
> > > > >
> > > > > I agree with this change but can you please rebase it over [1]?
> > > > >
> > > > > The same code got migrated to mtk_hdmi_common.c instead :-)
> > > > >
> > > > > [1]:
> > > > > https://lore.kernel.org/r/20250108112744.64686-1-angelogioacchino.delregno@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
> > > > My is 2-patch cleanup, your is 34 patch rework and new features with
> > > > existing build reports, so rebase is not reasonable. It would make this
> > > > 2-patch cleanup wait for many cycles.
> > > If adding the `#include <linux/bitfield.h>` line to a file would take
> > > *many cycles*, that'd be a bit weird, wouldn't it? :-)
> > It's not about include, it is about rebase. If I rebase on 34-patchset,
> > that's my dependency and this work cannot be merged before yours is.
> >
> > And yours already have kbuild reports, so there will be v5, maybe v6 etc.
>
>
> Although "NO!!!! No more huge patch bombs to
> linux-kernel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx people!" was removed, but its spirit is
> kind of still valid and requesting to rebase cleanups on top of patch
> bombs with new features is just not reasonable.

I understand Krzysztof, but since my 34-patchset should be ready and I don't
expect to send any v6 for how it is right now, your patch would make it
necessary to send yet another patchbomb on my side... we're kind-of in the
same situation here, and I feel like we're making a big issue out of something
that should not really be a problem.

I'm sorry about this situation, and I feel like this doesn't really depend
on me, as much as it doesn't really depend on you... let's just see what CK
thinks about this, or else, I don't know how to make this easier on all of
us - me, you and the maintainer.

If it felt like me being rude in any way, that wasn't my intention, btw.

I can offer to rebase this patch on my own keeping your authorship, if that
makes things easier.

Cheers,
Angelo