[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CAMuHMdVhYoFrN59JE3WNmfgiQ59eQBCKiVcHrx7F-zxR=JJ9SQ@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 24 Dec 2021 10:56:48 +0100
From: Geert Uytterhoeven <geert@...ux-m68k.org>
To: Nikita Yushchenko <nikita.yoush@...entembedded.com>
Cc: Magnus Damm <magnus.damm@...il.com>,
Rob Herring <robh+dt@...nel.org>,
Sergey Shtylyov <s.shtylyov@....ru>,
Linux-Renesas <linux-renesas-soc@...r.kernel.org>,
"open list:OPEN FIRMWARE AND FLATTENED DEVICE TREE BINDINGS"
<devicetree@...r.kernel.org>,
Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] arm64: dts: renesas: r8a77961: Add lvds0 device node
Hi Nikita,
On Fri, Dec 24, 2021 at 6:00 AM Nikita Yushchenko
<nikita.yoush@...entembedded.com> wrote:
> >> + lvds0: lvds@...90000 {
> >> + compatible = "renesas,r8a7796-lvds";
> >
> > This should be "renesas,r8a77961-lvds".
> > To handle that, both the DT bindings[1] and the driver[2] should
> > be updated.
> >
> > [1] Documentation/devicetree/bindings/display/bridge/renesas,lvds.yaml
> > [2] drivers/gpu/drm/rcar-du/rcar_lvds.c
>
> Ok, will redo that way, although I don't really understand what for to have different compatible strings
Thank you!
> for exactly same IP inside different chips.
Ca. 30% of the "presumed identical" IP blocks in R-Car Gen3 SoCs
turned out not to be that identical...
> Also note that arch/arm64/boot/dts/renesas/r8a77951.dtsi currently has renesas,r8a7795-lvds
That was an early judgment error, which we regret making.
Initially, R-Car H3 ES2.0 (r8a77951) was assumed to be a slightly
improved variant of R-Car H3 ES1.x (r8a77950), while it turned out
to be a completely different SoC.
Gr{oetje,eeting}s,
Geert
--
Geert Uytterhoeven -- There's lots of Linux beyond ia32 -- geert@...ux-m68k.org
In personal conversations with technical people, I call myself a hacker. But
when I'm talking to journalists I just say "programmer" or something like that.
-- Linus Torvalds
Powered by blists - more mailing lists