On Wed, 2026-03-25 at 09:17 +0100, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote:

On Tue, Mar 24, 2026 at 08:51:57PM +0800, Jay Liu wrote:

quoted

Change in v4:
- Address coding style comments for disp-tdshp binding. 

Coding style? Why so vague? So does that mean you ignored all
important
changes but did the "style" things?

quoted

- Rebase ccorr driver patch on top of latest linux-next to fix
conficts.

Where is the rest of the changeglog?

Why aren't you using b4 to provide also lore links and solve above
problem?

Best regards,
Krzysztof

Dear Krzysztof,

I sincerely apologize for the confusion caused by my vague changelog.
My intention was to be concise, but I realize it made it look like I
ignored your technical feedback, which was not the case.

I have actually implemented the changes you requested in v3. Here is
the detailed breakdown of what was fixed in v4:

1. Sibling description: Removed as suggested.
2. Enum: Dropped the items list and used enum directly.
3. Formatting: Removed the extra blank line and fixed the indentation
in the example section.

Regarding the Node Name (disp-tdshp):
This was the only item I hesitated to change. "tdshp" stands for "2D
sharpness", and I kept it to align with MediaTek's internal naming.
However, I understand the upstream requirement for generic names. Since
this is a sharpness engine, would you prefer "sharpness-processor" or
something similar?

And Thank you for the recommendation regarding b4. I will set it up for
future submissions to ensure lore links and changelogs are generated
correctly.

I will send a v5 with a proper changelog and the node name update once
we agree on the name.

Please let me know if I missed any other comments or if you have
further suggestions. I will do my best to address them.

Best regards,
Jay