DRM_PANEL_HIMAX_HX83102 is being split out from DRM_PANEL_BOE_TV101WUM_NL6.
Since the arm64 defconfig had the BOE panel driver enabled, let's also
enable the himax driver.
Signed-off-by: Cong Yang <yangcong5@huaqin.corp-partner.google.com>
Reviewed-by: Douglas Anderson <dianders@chromium.org>
---
arch/arm64/configs/defconfig | 1 +
1 file changed, 1 insertion(+)
diff --git a/arch/arm64/configs/defconfig b/arch/arm64/configs/defconfig
index 2c30d617e180..687c86ddaece 100644
--- a/arch/arm64/configs/defconfig
+++ b/arch/arm64/configs/defconfig
@@ -864,6 +864,7 @@ CONFIG_DRM_PANEL_BOE_TV101WUM_NL6=m
CONFIG_DRM_PANEL_LVDS=m
CONFIG_DRM_PANEL_SIMPLE=m
CONFIG_DRM_PANEL_EDP=m
+CONFIG_DRM_PANEL_HIMAX_HX83102=m
CONFIG_DRM_PANEL_ILITEK_ILI9882T=m
CONFIG_DRM_PANEL_MANTIX_MLAF057WE51=m
CONFIG_DRM_PANEL_RAYDIUM_RM67191=m
--
2.25.1Hi, On 15/05/2024 03:46, Cong Yang wrote: > DRM_PANEL_HIMAX_HX83102 is being split out from DRM_PANEL_BOE_TV101WUM_NL6. > Since the arm64 defconfig had the BOE panel driver enabled, let's also > enable the himax driver. > > Signed-off-by: Cong Yang <yangcong5@huaqin.corp-partner.google.com> > Reviewed-by: Douglas Anderson <dianders@chromium.org> > --- > arch/arm64/configs/defconfig | 1 + > 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+) > > diff --git a/arch/arm64/configs/defconfig b/arch/arm64/configs/defconfig > index 2c30d617e180..687c86ddaece 100644 > --- a/arch/arm64/configs/defconfig > +++ b/arch/arm64/configs/defconfig > @@ -864,6 +864,7 @@ CONFIG_DRM_PANEL_BOE_TV101WUM_NL6=m > CONFIG_DRM_PANEL_LVDS=m > CONFIG_DRM_PANEL_SIMPLE=m > CONFIG_DRM_PANEL_EDP=m > +CONFIG_DRM_PANEL_HIMAX_HX83102=m > CONFIG_DRM_PANEL_ILITEK_ILI9882T=m > CONFIG_DRM_PANEL_MANTIX_MLAF057WE51=m > CONFIG_DRM_PANEL_RAYDIUM_RM67191=m You should probably sent this one separately since only an ARM SoC maintainer can apply this, probably via the qcom tree. Thanks, Neil
Hi, On Wed, May 15, 2024 at 2:16 PM <neil.armstrong@linaro.org> wrote: > > Hi, > > On 15/05/2024 03:46, Cong Yang wrote: > > DRM_PANEL_HIMAX_HX83102 is being split out from DRM_PANEL_BOE_TV101WUM_NL6. > > Since the arm64 defconfig had the BOE panel driver enabled, let's also > > enable the himax driver. > > > > Signed-off-by: Cong Yang <yangcong5@huaqin.corp-partner.google.com> > > Reviewed-by: Douglas Anderson <dianders@chromium.org> > > --- > > arch/arm64/configs/defconfig | 1 + > > 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+) > > > > diff --git a/arch/arm64/configs/defconfig b/arch/arm64/configs/defconfig > > index 2c30d617e180..687c86ddaece 100644 > > --- a/arch/arm64/configs/defconfig > > +++ b/arch/arm64/configs/defconfig > > @@ -864,6 +864,7 @@ CONFIG_DRM_PANEL_BOE_TV101WUM_NL6=m > > CONFIG_DRM_PANEL_LVDS=m > > CONFIG_DRM_PANEL_SIMPLE=m > > CONFIG_DRM_PANEL_EDP=m > > +CONFIG_DRM_PANEL_HIMAX_HX83102=m > > CONFIG_DRM_PANEL_ILITEK_ILI9882T=m > > CONFIG_DRM_PANEL_MANTIX_MLAF057WE51=m > > CONFIG_DRM_PANEL_RAYDIUM_RM67191=m > > You should probably sent this one separately since only an ARM SoC maintainer > can apply this, probably via the qcom tree. Really? I always kinda figured that this was a bit like MAINTAINERS where it can come through a bunch of different trees. Certainly I've landed changes to it before through the drm-misc tree. If that was wrong then I'll certainly stop doing it, of course. -Doug
Hi: If it is determined that a separately patch needs to be sent, then I will remove this patch in V8 series? Doug Anderson <dianders@chromium.org> 于2024年5月16日周四 05:28写道： > > Hi, > > On Wed, May 15, 2024 at 2:16 PM <neil.armstrong@linaro.org> wrote: > > > > Hi, > > > > On 15/05/2024 03:46, Cong Yang wrote: > > > DRM_PANEL_HIMAX_HX83102 is being split out from DRM_PANEL_BOE_TV101WUM_NL6. > > > Since the arm64 defconfig had the BOE panel driver enabled, let's also > > > enable the himax driver. > > > > > > Signed-off-by: Cong Yang <yangcong5@huaqin.corp-partner.google.com> > > > Reviewed-by: Douglas Anderson <dianders@chromium.org> > > > --- > > > arch/arm64/configs/defconfig | 1 + > > > 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+) > > > > > > diff --git a/arch/arm64/configs/defconfig b/arch/arm64/configs/defconfig > > > index 2c30d617e180..687c86ddaece 100644 > > > --- a/arch/arm64/configs/defconfig > > > +++ b/arch/arm64/configs/defconfig > > > @@ -864,6 +864,7 @@ CONFIG_DRM_PANEL_BOE_TV101WUM_NL6=m > > > CONFIG_DRM_PANEL_LVDS=m > > > CONFIG_DRM_PANEL_SIMPLE=m > > > CONFIG_DRM_PANEL_EDP=m > > > +CONFIG_DRM_PANEL_HIMAX_HX83102=m > > > CONFIG_DRM_PANEL_ILITEK_ILI9882T=m > > > CONFIG_DRM_PANEL_MANTIX_MLAF057WE51=m > > > CONFIG_DRM_PANEL_RAYDIUM_RM67191=m > > > > You should probably sent this one separately since only an ARM SoC maintainer > > can apply this, probably via the qcom tree. > > Really? I always kinda figured that this was a bit like MAINTAINERS > where it can come through a bunch of different trees. Certainly I've > landed changes to it before through the drm-misc tree. If that was > wrong then I'll certainly stop doing it, of course. > > -Doug
On 16/05/2024 08:43, cong yang wrote: > Hi: > > If it is determined that a separately patch needs to be sent, then I > will remove this patch in V8 series? > > Doug Anderson <dianders@chromium.org> 于2024年5月16日周四 05:28写道： > >> >> Hi, >> >> On Wed, May 15, 2024 at 2:16 PM <neil.armstrong@linaro.org> wrote: >>> >>> Hi, >>> >>> On 15/05/2024 03:46, Cong Yang wrote: >>>> DRM_PANEL_HIMAX_HX83102 is being split out from DRM_PANEL_BOE_TV101WUM_NL6. >>>> Since the arm64 defconfig had the BOE panel driver enabled, let's also >>>> enable the himax driver. >>>> >>>> Signed-off-by: Cong Yang <yangcong5@huaqin.corp-partner.google.com> >>>> Reviewed-by: Douglas Anderson <dianders@chromium.org> >>>> --- >>>> arch/arm64/configs/defconfig | 1 + >>>> 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+) >>>> >>>> diff --git a/arch/arm64/configs/defconfig b/arch/arm64/configs/defconfig >>>> index 2c30d617e180..687c86ddaece 100644 >>>> --- a/arch/arm64/configs/defconfig >>>> +++ b/arch/arm64/configs/defconfig >>>> @@ -864,6 +864,7 @@ CONFIG_DRM_PANEL_BOE_TV101WUM_NL6=m >>>> CONFIG_DRM_PANEL_LVDS=m >>>> CONFIG_DRM_PANEL_SIMPLE=m >>>> CONFIG_DRM_PANEL_EDP=m >>>> +CONFIG_DRM_PANEL_HIMAX_HX83102=m >>>> CONFIG_DRM_PANEL_ILITEK_ILI9882T=m >>>> CONFIG_DRM_PANEL_MANTIX_MLAF057WE51=m >>>> CONFIG_DRM_PANEL_RAYDIUM_RM67191=m >>> >>> You should probably sent this one separately since only an ARM SoC maintainer >>> can apply this, probably via the qcom tree. >> >> Really? I always kinda figured that this was a bit like MAINTAINERS >> where it can come through a bunch of different trees. Certainly I've >> landed changes to it before through the drm-misc tree. If that was >> wrong then I'll certainly stop doing it, of course. Yeah we usually don't mess with arch specific defconfig from drm tree >> >> -Doug
Hi, On Wed, May 15, 2024 at 11:55 PM <neil.armstrong@linaro.org> wrote: > > On 16/05/2024 08:43, cong yang wrote: > > Hi: > > > > If it is determined that a separately patch needs to be sent, then I > > will remove this patch in V8 series? > > > > Doug Anderson <dianders@chromium.org> 于2024年5月16日周四 05:28写道： > > > >> > >> Hi, > >> > >> On Wed, May 15, 2024 at 2:16 PM <neil.armstrong@linaro.org> wrote: > >>> > >>> Hi, > >>> > >>> On 15/05/2024 03:46, Cong Yang wrote: > >>>> DRM_PANEL_HIMAX_HX83102 is being split out from DRM_PANEL_BOE_TV101WUM_NL6. > >>>> Since the arm64 defconfig had the BOE panel driver enabled, let's also > >>>> enable the himax driver. > >>>> > >>>> Signed-off-by: Cong Yang <yangcong5@huaqin.corp-partner.google.com> > >>>> Reviewed-by: Douglas Anderson <dianders@chromium.org> > >>>> --- > >>>> arch/arm64/configs/defconfig | 1 + > >>>> 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+) > >>>> > >>>> diff --git a/arch/arm64/configs/defconfig b/arch/arm64/configs/defconfig > >>>> index 2c30d617e180..687c86ddaece 100644 > >>>> --- a/arch/arm64/configs/defconfig > >>>> +++ b/arch/arm64/configs/defconfig > >>>> @@ -864,6 +864,7 @@ CONFIG_DRM_PANEL_BOE_TV101WUM_NL6=m > >>>> CONFIG_DRM_PANEL_LVDS=m > >>>> CONFIG_DRM_PANEL_SIMPLE=m > >>>> CONFIG_DRM_PANEL_EDP=m > >>>> +CONFIG_DRM_PANEL_HIMAX_HX83102=m > >>>> CONFIG_DRM_PANEL_ILITEK_ILI9882T=m > >>>> CONFIG_DRM_PANEL_MANTIX_MLAF057WE51=m > >>>> CONFIG_DRM_PANEL_RAYDIUM_RM67191=m > >>> > >>> You should probably sent this one separately since only an ARM SoC maintainer > >>> can apply this, probably via the qcom tree. > >> > >> Really? I always kinda figured that this was a bit like MAINTAINERS > >> where it can come through a bunch of different trees. Certainly I've > >> landed changes to it before through the drm-misc tree. If that was > >> wrong then I'll certainly stop doing it, of course. > > Yeah we usually don't mess with arch specific defconfig from drm tree In general I agree that makes sense. In this case, though, the new config symbol was introduced in the previous patch and split off an existing symbol. Updating "all" of the configs (AKA just arm64) that had the old symbol to also have the new symbol seems like the nice thing to do and it feels like it makes sense to land in the same tree that did the "split" just to cause the least confusion to anyone affected. In any case, if it's going to land in some other tree then I guess the question is whether it needs to wait a few revisions to land there or if it should land right away. Nobody would get a compile error if it landed in a different tree right away since unknown config symbols are silently ignored, but it feels a little weird to me. ...of course, I'm also OK just dropping the config patch. I personally don't use the upstream "defconfig". It just seemed courteous to update it for those who do. -Doug
Hi, On Thu, May 16, 2024 at 6:43 AM Doug Anderson <dianders@chromium.org> wrote: > > Hi, > > On Wed, May 15, 2024 at 11:55 PM <neil.armstrong@linaro.org> wrote: > > > > On 16/05/2024 08:43, cong yang wrote: > > > Hi: > > > > > > If it is determined that a separately patch needs to be sent, then I > > > will remove this patch in V8 series? > > > > > > Doug Anderson <dianders@chromium.org> 于2024年5月16日周四 05:28写道： > > > > > >> > > >> Hi, > > >> > > >> On Wed, May 15, 2024 at 2:16 PM <neil.armstrong@linaro.org> wrote: > > >>> > > >>> Hi, > > >>> > > >>> On 15/05/2024 03:46, Cong Yang wrote: > > >>>> DRM_PANEL_HIMAX_HX83102 is being split out from DRM_PANEL_BOE_TV101WUM_NL6. > > >>>> Since the arm64 defconfig had the BOE panel driver enabled, let's also > > >>>> enable the himax driver. > > >>>> > > >>>> Signed-off-by: Cong Yang <yangcong5@huaqin.corp-partner.google.com> > > >>>> Reviewed-by: Douglas Anderson <dianders@chromium.org> > > >>>> --- > > >>>> arch/arm64/configs/defconfig | 1 + > > >>>> 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+) > > >>>> > > >>>> diff --git a/arch/arm64/configs/defconfig b/arch/arm64/configs/defconfig > > >>>> index 2c30d617e180..687c86ddaece 100644 > > >>>> --- a/arch/arm64/configs/defconfig > > >>>> +++ b/arch/arm64/configs/defconfig > > >>>> @@ -864,6 +864,7 @@ CONFIG_DRM_PANEL_BOE_TV101WUM_NL6=m > > >>>> CONFIG_DRM_PANEL_LVDS=m > > >>>> CONFIG_DRM_PANEL_SIMPLE=m > > >>>> CONFIG_DRM_PANEL_EDP=m > > >>>> +CONFIG_DRM_PANEL_HIMAX_HX83102=m > > >>>> CONFIG_DRM_PANEL_ILITEK_ILI9882T=m > > >>>> CONFIG_DRM_PANEL_MANTIX_MLAF057WE51=m > > >>>> CONFIG_DRM_PANEL_RAYDIUM_RM67191=m > > >>> > > >>> You should probably sent this one separately since only an ARM SoC maintainer > > >>> can apply this, probably via the qcom tree. > > >> > > >> Really? I always kinda figured that this was a bit like MAINTAINERS > > >> where it can come through a bunch of different trees. Certainly I've > > >> landed changes to it before through the drm-misc tree. If that was > > >> wrong then I'll certainly stop doing it, of course. > > > > Yeah we usually don't mess with arch specific defconfig from drm tree > > In general I agree that makes sense. In this case, though, the new > config symbol was introduced in the previous patch and split off an > existing symbol. Updating "all" of the configs (AKA just arm64) that > had the old symbol to also have the new symbol seems like the nice > thing to do and it feels like it makes sense to land in the same tree > that did the "split" just to cause the least confusion to anyone > affected. > > In any case, if it's going to land in some other tree then I guess the > question is whether it needs to wait a few revisions to land there or > if it should land right away. Nobody would get a compile error if it > landed in a different tree right away since unknown config symbols are > silently ignored, but it feels a little weird to me. > > ...of course, I'm also OK just dropping the config patch. I personally > don't use the upstream "defconfig". It just seemed courteous to update > it for those who do. Hmmm, probably should have put Arnd on this thread. Added now in case he has any opinions. I also did manage to find when this last came up where I was involved. At that time Will Deacon (who get_maintainer.pl reports is the official maintainer of this file) said [1]: > But yes, although there are a few things I really care about > in defconfig (e.g. things like page size!), generally speaking we don't > need to Ack everything that changes in there. [1] https://lore.kernel.org/linux-arm-kernel/20201112004130.17290-1-dianders@chromium.org/T/
© 2016 - 2026 Red Hat, Inc.