From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from mail.hugovil.com (mail.hugovil.com [162.243.120.170]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.subspace.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id C4B963CCFD2; Mon, 23 Mar 2026 17:41:15 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; arc=none smtp.client-ip=162.243.120.170 ARC-Seal:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1774287677; cv=none; b=q2bAM+CgHeSCgO+jiefzGMUThDd8EWVPm+/1A5Q8ivAAKs+VbkTSdqNVLViN9uWxzEpkPSonZMBe9FH61rJ+P/foTHihaZ8cFNUpY07D01YvkiUDXn1YxSqqM5Nxt9RMoayH7CTC6c6HMaaxiGykMJyqeshDxztdbIoatzVKNyE= ARC-Message-Signature:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1774287677; c=relaxed/simple; bh=VNbeoXsnXbo+98jSq/Bl5LZJAYWTKJV7TzFcNeLE4Oo=; h=Date:From:To:Cc:Subject:Message-Id:In-Reply-To:References: Mime-Version:Content-Type; b=ulbOLKcFQscVEM5SSFdTG8Hsxi7Z2NvjIwuL+aMZhS/WyV8cx7NNxqe0VLI53syhO+zvV1NgTJbqSMcga0e2WBe7jcaLPrPocIT0PucHCOfVFyOtSCpHS3XIcj7aO4l+LAlgsIQ0VoE+qOC+zq/su8q+7/rshAEYtpGgB0t3eTI= ARC-Authentication-Results:i=1; smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=none dis=none) header.from=hugovil.com; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=hugovil.com; dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=hugovil.com header.i=@hugovil.com header.b=Nv8MHeXf; arc=none smtp.client-ip=162.243.120.170 Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=none dis=none) header.from=hugovil.com Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=hugovil.com Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=hugovil.com header.i=@hugovil.com header.b="Nv8MHeXf" DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; q=dns/txt; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=hugovil.com ; s=default; h=Content-Transfer-Encoding:Mime-Version:Message-Id:Subject:Cc: To:From:Date:subject:date:message-id:reply-to; bh=EtCsnBnZz2wovDVb2c1WqzkKZB1qCNcO5X2CZ7cgDMk=; b=Nv8MHeXfYy1zDbtwL544BfXXL2 xUDpz9v2/6kr95JFN3HJAZ8/g8Ss8JhcYSEGO7/HSyZVKhCgf+fieiT2Dq1z8hz5mOzbSmtNwgHod GeAmspCxs6Q/PuX5+h1F8BcpQo6CWFJAJj5O5evhQ96LIHTayRPxp7WsuwZjNssoIfPI=; Received: from modemcable168.174-80-70.mc.videotron.ca ([70.80.174.168] helo=pettiford.lan) by mail.hugovil.com with esmtpa (Exim 4.98.2) (envelope-from ) id 1w4jH1-0000000028R-2NHB; Mon, 23 Mar 2026 13:41:07 -0400 Date: Mon, 23 Mar 2026 13:41:06 -0400 From: Hugo Villeneuve To: Biju Das Cc: biju.das.au , Maarten Lankhorst , Maxime Ripard , Thomas Zimmermann , David Airlie , Simona Vetter , Chris Brandt , Laurent Pinchart , Sam Ravnborg , "dri-devel@lists.freedesktop.org" , "linux-renesas-soc@vger.kernel.org" , "linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" , Geert Uytterhoeven , Prabhakar Mahadev Lad Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 4/4] drm: renesas: rzg2l_mipi_dsi: Increase reset deassertion delay to 1 msec Message-Id: <20260323134106.a439ffad5d1ff6927e0c549f@hugovil.com> In-Reply-To: References: <20260319164833.409126-1-biju.das.jz@bp.renesas.com> <20260319164833.409126-5-biju.das.jz@bp.renesas.com> <20260323102015.957b2f855b7d54aa5d33869d@hugovil.com> X-Mailer: Sylpheed 3.8.0beta1 (GTK+ 2.24.33; x86_64-pc-linux-gnu) Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Spam_score: -2.0 X-Spam_bar: -- Hi Biju, On Mon, 23 Mar 2026 15:19:27 +0000 Biju Das wrote: > Hi Hugo, > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Hugo Villeneuve > > Sent: 23 March 2026 14:20 > > Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 4/4] drm: renesas: rzg2l_mipi_dsi: Increase reset deassertion delay to 1 msec > > > > Hi Biju, > > > > On Thu, 19 Mar 2026 16:48:28 +0000 > > Biju wrote: > > > > > From: Biju Das > > > > > > The RZ/G2L hardware manual (Rev. 1.50, May 2025), Section 34.4.2.1, > > > requires waiting more than 1 msec after deasserting the CMN_RSTB > > > signal before the DSI-Tx module is ready. Increase the delay from 1 > > > usec to > > > 1 msec by replacing udelay(1) with fsleep(1000). > > > > > > Signed-off-by: Biju Das > > > > In your first submission, I commented that "...this should be backported to stable branches (missing > > Fixes / Cc: stable tags)?" and you answered with "Agreed, will add fixes/stable tags". > > > > If you still agree, this patch should be #3 in your list, so that it is easier/straightforward to > > backport to stable branches. > > The patch order is changed. that is the reason I have not added any fixes/stable tags. This is not a logical nor valid justification if the change merits to be backported to stable branches as you indicated in series 1. Why have you changed your mind? > The if check in patch#3 makes it is not backportable to stable branches. If you put the delay patch before that "if check", then it is irrelevant, no? > If I reorder this to patch#3 it is fixing just the delay mentioned in the hardware manual. Yes, and that is also exactly what this current version does, no? For me, it is simply changing a delay from 1us to 1ms. Whether you change it before or after another patch isn't supposed to matter in the end, unless I am missing something? -- Hugo Villeneuve