linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 3/4] drm/tiny: Add driver for Solomon SSD1307 OLED displays

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] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <b4fe0d36-c4ef-6f7e-e47d-f98f6055ea92@redhat.com>
Date:   Tue, 1 Feb 2022 16:10:49 +0100
From:   Javier Martinez Canillas <javierm@...hat.com>
To:     Andy Shevchenko <andriy.shevchenko@...ux.intel.com>
Cc:     Sam Ravnborg <sam@...nborg.org>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-fbdev@...r.kernel.org,
        Daniel Vetter <daniel.vetter@...ll.ch>,
        dri-devel@...ts.freedesktop.org,
        Noralf Trønnes <noralf@...nnes.org>,
        Geert Uytterhoeven <geert@...ux-m68k.org>,
        Maxime Ripard <maxime@...no.tech>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 3/4] drm/tiny: Add driver for Solomon SSD1307 OLED
 displays

On 2/1/22 15:02, Andy Shevchenko wrote:
> On Tue, Feb 01, 2022 at 12:45:53PM +0100, Javier Martinez Canillas wrote:
>> On 2/1/22 10:44, Andy Shevchenko wrote:
>>> On Tue, Feb 01, 2022 at 01:14:22AM +0100, Javier Martinez Canillas wrote:
> 
> ...
> 
>>> The problem with no backward compatibility means that removal of old driver
>>> makes users unhappy since DT is kinda ABI and we do not break it.
>>>
>>
>> I think that's the crux of the issue. Do we want people to update their
>> kernel but using their existing Device Tree and be able to switch to the
>> DRM driver ?
>>
>> My take is that we should and that's why I kept the backward compatibility.
>>
>> Maybe we could do that in the meantime and at some point introduce new DT
>> bindings (with a different compatible string) that would use the latest
>> and greatest conventions in DT ? That seems to be a good compromise.
> 
> I have over-read in this discussion that current binding is not fully
> correct from hw perspective. If it's indeed the case (and I believe it's),
> then probably we should come with brand new driver with ssd130x name and
> incompatible bindingas (*).
>
> Otherwise in this driver we continue to be incorrect in them.
>

See the comment from Geert. I believe we should use the existing binding.
 
> *) But even though I think it would be good if you take the old one under your
>    maintainership.
>

Sure, now that I got familiar with the ssd130x devices, I'll be happy to
help with the ssd1307fb driver maintainership.

Best regards,
-- 
Javier Martinez Canillas
Linux Engineering
Red Hat