[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <e017259b-bc62-4b57-9276-b834237225e1@kernel.org>
Date: Thu, 18 Jul 2024 08:19:00 +0200
From: Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzk@...nel.org>
To: Doug Anderson <dianders@...omium.org>, Conor Dooley <conor@...nel.org>
Cc: Stephan Gerhold <stephan.gerhold@...aro.org>,
Neil Armstrong <neil.armstrong@...aro.org>,
Bjorn Andersson <andersson@...nel.org>,
Konrad Dybcio <konrad.dybcio@...aro.org>,
Jessica Zhang <quic_jesszhan@...cinc.com>, Rob Herring <robh@...nel.org>,
Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzk+dt@...nel.org>, Conor Dooley
<conor+dt@...nel.org>, dri-devel@...ts.freedesktop.org,
devicetree@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
linux-arm-msm@...r.kernel.org, Abel Vesa <abel.vesa@...aro.org>,
Johan Hovold <johan@...nel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 1/4] dt-bindings: display: panel: samsung,atna33xc20:
Document ATNA45AF01
On 18/07/2024 02:21, Doug Anderson wrote:
> Conor (and/or) Krzysztof and Rob,
>
> On Mon, Jul 15, 2024 at 8:31 AM Conor Dooley <conor@...nel.org> wrote:
>>
>> On Mon, Jul 15, 2024 at 02:15:37PM +0200, Stephan Gerhold wrote:
>>> The Samsung ATNA45AF01 panel is an AMOLED eDP panel that has backlight
>>> control over the DP AUX channel. While it works almost correctly with the
>>> generic "edp-panel" compatible, the backlight needs special handling to
>>> work correctly. It is similar to the existing ATNA33XC20 panel, just with
>>> a larger resolution and size.
>>>
>>> Add a new "samsung,atna45af01" compatible to describe this panel in the DT.
>>> Use the existing "samsung,atna33xc20" as fallback compatible since existing
>>> drivers should work as-is, given that resolution and size are discoverable
>>> through the eDP link.
>>>
>>> Signed-off-by: Stephan Gerhold <stephan.gerhold@...aro.org>
>>
>> Acked-by: Conor Dooley <conor.dooley@...rochip.com>
>
> Can you comment on whether you would consider this bindings a "Fix"
> since it's a dependency for later patches in this series (which are
> "Fix"es) to pass dtbs_check? See:
>
> https://lore.kernel.org/r/4bca316a-2334-425b-87a6-e1bb241d26b5@linaro.org
The patch itself is not a fix, for sure, but it might be a dependency of
a fix (which you wrote above), thus could be pulled to stable as a
dependency.
I do not care about dtbs_check warnings in stable kernels, mostly
because dtbs_check warnings depend heavily on dtschema and dtschema
follows mainline kernel. Basically if you had warnings-free v6.8 but try
to run dtbs_check now with latest dtschema, your results will differ.
At some point in the future, I could imagine "no new dtbs_check warnings
in stable kernels" requirement or at least preference, but so far I
don't think there is any benefit.
Best regards,
Krzysztof
Powered by blists - more mailing lists