[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20241021-january-dissuade-d391a189007b@spud>
Date: Mon, 21 Oct 2024 12:35:16 +0100
From: Conor Dooley <conor@...nel.org>
To: Fei Shao <fshao@...omium.org>
Cc: AngeloGioacchino Del Regno <angelogioacchino.delregno@...labora.com>,
Chun-Kuang Hu <chunkuang.hu@...nel.org>, CK Hu <ck.hu@...iatek.com>,
Conor Dooley <conor+dt@...nel.org>,
Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzk+dt@...nel.org>,
Matthias Brugger <matthias.bgg@...il.com>,
Philipp Zabel <p.zabel@...gutronix.de>,
Rob Herring <robh@...nel.org>, devicetree@...r.kernel.org,
dri-devel@...ts.freedesktop.org,
linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
linux-mediatek@...ts.infradead.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] dt-bindings: display: mediatek: dpi: Update device list
with power-domains
On Sat, Oct 19, 2024 at 01:26:56PM +0800, Fei Shao wrote:
> There are two kinds of MediaTek DPI devices in the tree: the ones with a
> power domain and those without (or missing). The former are the majority
> and are more common in newer DTs. Only three older DTs fall into the
> latter category: MT2701, MT7623 and MT8192.
>
> However, the current binding only allows particular DPI devices to have
> power domains, which results in spurious binding check errors against
> existing and new DTs.
>
> Instead of diligently maintaining the allowed list, let's do it the
> other way around - create an exception list for devices that are fine
> not specifying a power domain. This list is expected to be fixed, and it
> encourages new MTK DPI devices to describe their power domain whenever
> possible; if not, those should be listed with proper rationale.
>
> Signed-off-by: Fei Shao <fshao@...omium.org>
Acked-by: Conor Dooley <conor.dooley@...rochip.com>
Download attachment "signature.asc" of type "application/pgp-signature" (229 bytes)
Powered by blists - more mailing lists