[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <761f1f4b-6f47-83a3-1e55-9e5dfccbaab8@linaro.org>
Date: Mon, 20 Feb 2023 11:31:59 +0100
From: Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzysztof.kozlowski@...aro.org>
To: Konrad Dybcio <konrad.dybcio@...aro.org>,
Bryan O'Donoghue <bryan.odonoghue@...aro.org>,
linux-arm-msm@...r.kernel.org, andersson@...nel.org,
agross@...nel.org
Cc: marijn.suijten@...ainline.org, Rob Clark <robdclark@...il.com>,
Abhinav Kumar <quic_abhinavk@...cinc.com>,
Dmitry Baryshkov <dmitry.baryshkov@...aro.org>,
Sean Paul <sean@...rly.run>, David Airlie <airlied@...il.com>,
Daniel Vetter <daniel@...ll.ch>,
Rob Herring <robh+dt@...nel.org>,
Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzysztof.kozlowski+dt@...aro.org>,
Krishna Manikandan <quic_mkrishn@...cinc.com>,
dri-devel@...ts.freedesktop.org, freedreno@...ts.freedesktop.org,
devicetree@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 1/2] dt-bindings: display/msm: dsi-controller-main: Fix
deprecated QCM2290 compatible
On 20/02/2023 11:24, Konrad Dybcio wrote:
>
>
> On 18.02.2023 15:49, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote:
>> On 18/02/2023 12:23, Konrad Dybcio wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>> On 18.02.2023 11:14, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote:
>>>> On 17/02/2023 22:13, Bryan O'Donoghue wrote:
>>>>> On 17/02/2023 12:24, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote:
>>>>>> First, it would be nice to know what was the intention of Bryan's commit?
>>>>>
>>>>> Sorry I've been grazing this thread but, not responding.
>>>>>
>>>>> - qcom,dsi-ctrl-6g-qcm2290
>>>>>
>>>>> is non-compliant with qcom,socid-dsi-ctrl which is our desired naming
>>>>> convention, so that's what the deprecation is about i.e. moving this
>>>>> compat to "qcom,qcm2290-dsi-ctrl"
>>>>
>>>> OK, then there was no intention to deprecate qcom,mdss-dsi-ctrl and it
>>>> should be left as allowed compatible.
>>> Not sure if we're on the same page.
>>
>> We are.
>>
>>>
>>> It wasn't intended to deprecate [1] "qcom,qcm2290-dsi-ctrl", "qcom-mdss-dsi-ctrl";
>>> (newly-introduced in Bryan's cleanup patchset) but it was intended to deprecate
>>> [2] "qcom,dsi-ctrl-6g-qcm2290"; which was introduced long before that *and* used in
>>> the 6115 dt (and it still is in linux-next today, as my cleanup hasn't landed yet).
>>>
>>> [3] "qcom,dsi-ctrl-6g-qcm2290", "qcom,mdss-dsi-ctrl" was never used (and should never
>>> be, considering there's a proper compatible [1] now) so adding it to bindings
>>> didn't solve the undocumented-ness issue. Plus the fallback would have never
>>> worked back then, as the DSI hw revision check would spit out 2.4.1 or 2.4.
>>> which is SC7180 or SDM845 and then it would never match the base register, as
>>> they're waay different.
>>
>> All these were known. I was asking about "qcom,mdss-dsi-ctrl", because
>> the original intention also affects the way we want to keep it now
>> (unless there are other reasons).
> Okay, so we want to deprecate:
>
> "qcom,dsi-ctrl-6g-qcm2290", "qcom,mdss-dsi-ctrl"
No, we don't want to deprecate it. Such compatible was never existing
originally and was only introduced by mistake. We want to correct the
mistake, but we don't want to deprecate such list.
>
> because it is:
>
> 1) non-compliant with the qcom,socname-hwblock formula
> 2) replaceable since we rely on the fallback compatible
> 3) "qcom,dsi-ctrl-6g-qcm2290" alone would have been expected to
> be fixed in the DTSI similar to other SoCs
>
> Is that correct?
No. So again, I am talking only about qcom,mdss-dsi-ctrl. Since
beginning of this thread:
"Wasn't then intention to deprecate both - qcm2290 and mdss - when used
alone?"
Why do you bring the list to the topic? The list was created by mistake
and Bryan confirmed that it was never his intention.
>
> Because 2) doesn't hold, as - at the time of the introduction
> of Bryan's patchset - the fallback compatible would not have
> been sufficient from the Linux POV [1]
There was no fallback compatible at that time.
> , though it would have been
> sufficient from the hardware description POV, as the hardware
> on the SoC *is* essentially what qcom,mdss-dsi-ctrl refers to.
>
> [1] The driver would simply not probe. It *would be* Linux-correct
> after my code-fixing series was applied, but I think I'm just failing
> to comprehend what sort of ABI we're trying to preserve here :/
Best regards,
Krzysztof
Powered by blists - more mailing lists