[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <e1d01191-fd96-4b17-b223-7147eb427315@linux.dev>
Date: Fri, 3 May 2024 00:25:17 +0800
From: Sui Jingfeng <sui.jingfeng@...ux.dev>
To: Andy Shevchenko <andriy.shevchenko@...ux.intel.com>
Cc: Neil Armstrong <neil.armstrong@...aro.org>,
Randy Dunlap <rdunlap@...radead.org>, dri-devel@...ts.freedesktop.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Jessica Zhang <quic_jesszhan@...cinc.com>,
Sam Ravnborg <sam@...nborg.org>,
Maarten Lankhorst <maarten.lankhorst@...ux.intel.com>,
Maxime Ripard <mripard@...nel.org>, Thomas Zimmermann <tzimmermann@...e.de>,
David Airlie <airlied@...il.com>, Daniel Vetter <daniel@...ll.ch>
Subject: Re: [v1,1/3] drm/panel: ili9341: Correct use of device property APIs
Hi,
On 2024/5/2 16:32, Andy Shevchenko wrote:
> On Wed, May 01, 2024 at 12:27:14AM +0800, Sui Jingfeng wrote:
>> On 2024/4/30 22:13, Andy Shevchenko wrote:
>>> On Fri, Apr 26, 2024 at 05:13:43AM +0800, Sui Jingfeng wrote:
> ...
>
>>> the former might be subdivided to "is it swnode backed or real fwnode one?"
>>>
>> Yeah,
>> On non-DT cases, it can be subdivided to swnode backed case and ACPI fwnode backed case.
>>
>> - For swnode backed case: the device_get_match_data() don't has a implemented backend.
>> - For ACPI fwnode backed case: the device_get_match_data() has a implemented backend.
>>
>> But the driver has *neither* software node support
> True.
>
>> nor ACPI support,
> Not true.
Why this is not true? Are you means that the panel-ilitek-ili9341 driver has ACPI support?
I'm asking because I don't see struct acpi_device_id related stuff in that source file,
am I miss something?
> So, slow down and take your time to get into the code and understand how it works.
>
>> so that the rotation property can not get and ili9341_dpi_probe() will fails.
>> So in total, this is not a 100% correct use of device property APIs.
>>
>> But I'm fine that if you want to leave(ignore) those less frequent use cases temporarily,
>> there may have programmers want to post patches, to complete the missing in the future.
>>
>> So, there do have some gains on non-DT cases.
>>
>> - As you make it be able to compiled on X86 with the drm-misc-defconfig.
>> - You cleanup the code up (at least patch 2 in this series is no obvious problem).
>> - You allow people to modprobe it, and maybe half right and half undefined.
>>
>> But you do helps moving something forward, so congratulations for the wake up.
--
Best regards,
Sui
Powered by blists - more mailing lists