linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v2 5/6] dt-bindings: add Sharp LQ123P1JX31 panel binding

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <CAD=FV=U3FwH4ScoE76hn5Q-Q09JZ22WP-kSbCfxnWkY2V=3fZA@mail.gmail.com>
Date:	Fri, 10 Jun 2016 11:08:33 -0700
From:	Doug Anderson <dianders@...omium.org>
To:	Rob Herring <robh@...nel.org>
Cc:	Yakir Yang <ykk@...k-chips.com>, David Airlie <airlied@...ux.ie>,
	Thierry Reding <thierry.reding@...il.com>,
	Pawel Moll <pawel.moll@....com>,
	Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@....com>,
	Kumar Gala <galak@...eaurora.org>,
	Ian Campbell <ijc+devicetree@...lion.org.uk>,
	"dri-devel@...ts.freedesktop.org" <dri-devel@...ts.freedesktop.org>,
	"devicetree@...r.kernel.org" <devicetree@...r.kernel.org>,
	"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 5/6] dt-bindings: add Sharp LQ123P1JX31 panel binding

Hi,

On Fri, Jun 10, 2016 at 10:54 AM, Rob Herring <robh@...nel.org> wrote:
>> In general Yakir's bindings document match a huge chunk of the current
>> existing bindings.  Do this:
>>   cd Documentation/devicetree/bindings/display/panel
>>   grep -C20 "This binding is compatible with the simple-panel" *
>>
>> You'll find a huge chunk of files which are rather formulaic.  It
>> might make sense to just have one file and a list of panels which are
>> simple panels?
>
> If we're just documenting compatible strings, then maybe so.

I'm happy to post such a patch if folks would prefer.  ...but since
it's the kind of patch that is nearly certain to produce conflicts /
miss in-flight patches, it might make sense for one of the maintainers
of this directory write/post it at the most expedient time and manage
transitions.  I'm OK either way, so just let me know.

Until that happens, I'd presume that the best course of action is to
keep posting bindings using the current formulaic approach and to
deviate as little as possible from the formula to make later
unification easier.  ;)

Thanks!

-Doug