linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 2/2] drm/tiny: Add driver for Sharp Memory LCD

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: <68a75949-a908-4416-bb2c-ad07596f0d29@kernel.org>
Date: Fri, 26 Jul 2024 10:43:57 +0200
From: Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzk@...nel.org>
To: Alex Lanzano <lanzano.alex@...il.com>
Cc: mehdi.djait@...tlin.com, David Airlie <airlied@...il.com>,
 Daniel Vetter <daniel@...ll.ch>,
 Maarten Lankhorst <maarten.lankhorst@...ux.intel.com>,
 Maxime Ripard <mripard@...nel.org>, Thomas Zimmermann <tzimmermann@...e.de>,
 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
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/2] drm/tiny: Add driver for Sharp Memory LCD

On 26/07/2024 03:25, Alex Lanzano wrote:
> On Thu, Jul 25, 2024 at 08:08:57AM GMT, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote:
>> On 25/07/2024 02:47, Alex Lanzano wrote:
>>> +static const struct spi_device_id sharp_memory_ids[] = {
>>> +	{"ls010b7dh04", LS010B7DH04},
>>> +	{"ls011b7dh03", LS011B7DH03},
>>> +	{"ls012b7dd01", LS012B7DD01},
>>> +	{"ls013b7dh03", LS013B7DH03},
>>> +	{"ls013b7dh05", LS013B7DH05},
>>> +	{"ls018b7dh02", LS018B7DH02},
>>> +	{"ls027b7dh01", LS027B7DH01},
>>> +	{"ls027b7dh01a", LS027B7DH01A},
>>> +	{"ls032b7dd02", LS032B7DD02},
>>> +	{"ls044q7dh01", LS044Q7DH01},
>>> +	{},
>>> +};
>>> +MODULE_DEVICE_TABLE(spi, sharp_memory_ids);
>>> +
>>> +static const struct of_device_id sharp_memory_of_match[] = {
>>> +	{.compatible = "sharp,ls010b7dh04"},
>>
>> Both ID tables should be in sync. See not-so-recent IIO discussions and
>> commits.
>>
>>> +	{.compatible = "sharp,ls011b7dh03"},
>>> +	{.compatible = "sharp,ls012b7dd01"},
>>> +	{.compatible = "sharp,ls013b7dh03"},
>>> +	{.compatible = "sharp,ls013b7dh05"},
>>> +	{.compatible = "sharp,ls018b7dh02"},
>>> +	{.compatible = "sharp,ls027b7dh01"},
>>> +	{.compatible = "sharp,ls027b7dh01a"},
>>> +	{.compatible = "sharp,ls032b7dd02"},
>>> +	{.compatible = "sharp,ls044q7dh01"},
>>> +	{},
>>> +};
>>> +MODULE_DEVICE_TABLE(of, sharp_memory_of_match);
> 
> I'm having some trouble finding the discussions and commits you're referring to.
> When you say the tables should be in sync are you referring to the ordering of
> entries in the tables? Like at index x of both tables should define model y?

No, the match data.

62d3fb9dcc091ccdf25eb3b716e90e07e3ed861f

Best regards,
Krzysztof