[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <ZyHYw40duPrm0ZeF@ux-UP-WHL01>
Date: Wed, 30 Oct 2024 14:57:07 +0800
From: Charles Wang <charles.goodix@...il.com>
To: Doug Anderson <dianders@...omium.org>
Cc: Rob Herring <robh@...nel.org>, dmitry.torokhov@...il.com,
hbarnor@...omium.org, conor.dooley@...rochip.com, jikos@...nel.org,
bentiss@...nel.org, linux-input@...r.kernel.org,
devicetree@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzk@...nel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] dt-bindings: input: Goodix SPI HID Touchscreen
On Fri, Oct 25, 2024 at 09:19:14AM -0700, Doug Anderson wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On Fri, Oct 25, 2024 at 8:59 AM Rob Herring <robh@...nel.org> wrote:
> >
> > On Fri, Oct 25, 2024 at 10:29 AM Doug Anderson <dianders@...omium.org> wrote:
> > >
> > > Charles,
> > >
> > > On Fri, Oct 25, 2024 at 5:03 AM Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzk@...nel.org> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > +properties:
> > > > > + compatible:
> > > > > + enum:
> > > > > + - goodix,gt7986u-spi
> > > >
> > > > Compatible is already documented and nothing here explains why we should
> > > > spi variant.
> > > >
> > > > > +
> > > > > + reg:
> > > > > + maxItems: 1
> > > > > +
> > > > > + interrupts:
> > > > > + maxItems: 1
> > > > > +
> > > > > + reset-gpios:
> > > > > + maxItems: 1
> > > > > +
> > > > > + goodix,hid-report-addr:
> > > >
> > > > I do not see this patch addressing previous review. Sending something
> > > > like this as v1 after long discussions also does not help.
> > >
> > > Krzysztof is right that it's better to wait until we get consensus on
> > > the previous discussion before sending a new patch. I know you were
> > > just trying to help move things forward, but because of the way the
> > > email workflow works, sending a new version tends to fork the
> > > discussion into two threads and adds confusion.
> > >
> > > I know Krzysztof and Rob have been silent during our recent
> > > discussion, but it's also a long discussion. I've been assuming that
> > > they will take some time to digest and reply in a little bit. If they
> > > didn't, IMO it would have been reasonable to explicitly ask them for
> > > feedback in the other thread after giving a bit of time.
> >
> > If the firmware creates fundamentally different interfaces, then
> > different compatibles makes sense. If the same driver handles both bus
> > interfaces, then 1 compatible should be fine. The addition of '-spi'
> > to the compatible doesn't give any indication of a different
> > programming model. I wouldn't care except for folks who will see it
> > and just copy it when their only difference is the bus interface and
> > we get to have the same discussion all over again. So if appending
> > '-spi' is the only thing you can come up with, make it abundantly
> > clear so that others don't blindly copy it. The commit msg is useful
> > for convincing us, but not for that purpose.
>
> OK, makes sense. Charles: Can you think of any better description for
> this interface than "goodix,gt7986u-spi"? I suppose you could make it
> super obvious that it's running different firmware with
> "goodix,gt7986u-spifw" and maybe that would be a little better.
>
> I think what Rob is asking for to make it super obvious is that in the
> "description" of the binding you mention that in this case we're
> running a substantially different firmware than GT7986U touchscreens
> represented by the "goodix,gt7986u" binding and thus is considered a
> distinct device.
>
> At this point, IMO you could wait until Monday in case Krzysztof wants
> to add his $0.02 worth and then you could send a "v2" patch addressing
> the comments so far, though of course you could continue to reply to
> this thread if you have further questions / comments.
>
Thank you for your explanation, I understand your point. I want to clarify
that the gt7986u-spi and gt7986u indeed use two entirely different drivers
and two distinct firmware.
Using "goodix,gt7986u-spi" could indeed cause confusion. How about modifying
it to "goodix,gt7986u-losto" by adding a special code?
Additionally, I would like to confirm: when submitting the v2 patch, should
it be based on this thread or the previous discussion thread?
Best regards,
Charles
Powered by blists - more mailing lists