linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v4 3/3] drm/panel-fannal-c3004: Add fannal c3004 DSI panel

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: <0d43e653-32cd-b25e-40fa-6f0571048467@denx.de>
Date:   Thu, 6 Jul 2023 17:26:12 +0200
From:   Marek Vasut <marex@...x.de>
To:     Paulo Pavacic <pavacic.p@...il.com>,
        Linus Walleij <linus.walleij@...aro.org>
Cc:     Jagan Teki <jagan@...rulasolutions.com>,
        Maya Matuszczyk <maccraft123mc@...il.com>,
        neil.armstrong@...aro.org, sam@...nborg.org, airlied@...il.com,
        daniel@...ll.ch, robh+dt@...nel.org,
        krzysztof.kozlowski+dt@...aro.org, conor+dt@...nel.org,
        devicetree@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        dri-devel@...ts.freedesktop.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 3/3] drm/panel-fannal-c3004: Add fannal c3004 DSI panel

On 7/6/23 17:18, Paulo Pavacic wrote:
> Hello Linus,
> 
> čet, 22. lip 2023. u 10:22 Linus Walleij <linus.walleij@...aro.org> napisao je:
>>
>> On Wed, Jun 21, 2023 at 5:09 PM Paulo Pavacic <pavacic.p@...il.com> wrote:
>>
>>> A lot of modifications to st7701 are required. I believe it would
>>> result in a driver that doesn't look or work the same. e.g compare
>>> delays between initialization sequences of panel-fannal-c3004 and
>>> panel-st7701. I think it would be optimal to create st7701s driver and
>>> have special handling for st7701s panels. If there was a flag for
>>> whether panel is st7701 or st7701s it would end up looking like a
>>> mess.
>>
>> What matters is if the original authors of the old st7701 driver are
>> around and reviewing and testing patches at all. What we need is
>> active maintainers. (Added Jagan, Marek & Maya).
>>
>> I buy the reasoning that the st7701s is perhaps substantially different
>> from st7701.
>>
>> If st7701s is very different then I suppose it needs a separate driver,
>> then all we need to to name the driver properly, i.e.
>> panel-sitronix-st7701s.c.
> 
> I had in person talk with Paul Kocialkowski and I have concluded that
> this is the best solution.
> I believe I should rename it to st7701s due to the hardware changes. I
> would like to create V5 patch with driver renamed to st7701s.
> Please let me know if you agree / disagree.

If I recall it right, the ST7701 and ST7701S are basically the same 
chip, aren't they ?