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: <j5laj5fy4lamyhlyelaq5vfu5vfxj4ybrssrbvrbyndbnvmsyh@6voevw6f3xf7>
Date: Thu, 25 Jul 2024 21:25:23 -0400
From: Alex Lanzano <lanzano.alex@...il.com>
To: Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzk@...nel.org>
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 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?

Best regards,
Alex