linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH V2 3/3] drm/bridge: it66121: Add it66122 support

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: <0c684542-aacb-4e8c-a1c0-7fc0da78c733@ideasonboard.com>
Date: Thu, 14 Aug 2025 13:32:15 +0300
From: Tomi Valkeinen <tomi.valkeinen@...asonboard.com>
To: Nishanth Menon <nm@...com>
Cc: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, devicetree@...r.kernel.org,
 dri-devel@...ts.freedesktop.org, Robert Nelson <robertcnelson@...il.com>,
 Conor Dooley <conor+dt@...nel.org>, Krzysztof Kozlowski
 <krzk+dt@...nel.org>, Rob Herring <robh@...nel.org>,
 David Airlie <airlied@...il.com>, Maxime Ripard <mripard@...nel.org>,
 Laurent Pinchart <Laurent.pinchart@...asonboard.com>,
 Neil Armstrong <neil.armstrong@...aro.org>,
 Jason Kridner <jkridner@...gleboard.org>, afd@...com
Subject: Re: [PATCH V2 3/3] drm/bridge: it66121: Add it66122 support

Hi,

On 13/08/2025 23:41, Nishanth Menon wrote:
> The IT66122 is a drop in replacement for the IT66122. The part is
> register compatible with what we use of the IT66121. The only relevant

The intro letter said "practical purposes is drop in replacement for
IT66121". Here you say "with what we use of the IT66121".

What does that mean? Are they identical, except the IDs? Or are they
different, but the features and registers this driver uses are
identical? Or different, but only identical wrt. the driver's features
TI uses?

Assuming the first one of those, for the series:

Reviewed-by: Tomi Valkeinen <tomi.valkeinen@...asonboard.com>

 Tomi

> change being the PID is now 0x0622 vs 0x0612. Add this extra PID so
> probe does not fail during the PID check with these new parts.
> 
> For new platforms that do explicitly use IT66122, they can use the
> appropriate compatible as well.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Nishanth Menon <nm@...com>
> ---
> Changes since V1:
> - I think this is a more pragmatic approach with both compatibles
>   functional and the option of being able to split this up at a later
>   point if required in driver.
> 
> NOTE: I still retain the checkpatch --strict warning as v1 here.
> 
> V1: https://lore.kernel.org/all/20250813190835.344563-3-nm@ti.com/
> 
>  drivers/gpu/drm/bridge/ite-it66121.c | 3 +++
>  1 file changed, 3 insertions(+)
> 
> diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/bridge/ite-it66121.c b/drivers/gpu/drm/bridge/ite-it66121.c
> index 208e118df0e2..dcbbf7578046 100644
> --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/bridge/ite-it66121.c
> +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/bridge/ite-it66121.c
> @@ -1625,6 +1625,7 @@ static const struct it66121_chip_info it66121_chip_info = {
>  	.id = ID_IT66121,
>  	.device_id = {
>  		{.vid = 0x4954, .pid = 0x0612 },
> +		{.vid = 0x4954, .pid = 0x0622 },
>  		{ }
>  	},
>  };
> @@ -1639,6 +1640,7 @@ static const struct it66121_chip_info it6610_chip_info = {
>  
>  static const struct of_device_id it66121_dt_match[] = {
>  	{ .compatible = "ite,it66121", &it66121_chip_info },
> +	{ .compatible = "ite,it66122", &it66121_chip_info },
>  	{ .compatible = "ite,it6610", &it6610_chip_info },
>  	{ }
>  };
> @@ -1646,6 +1648,7 @@ MODULE_DEVICE_TABLE(of, it66121_dt_match);
>  
>  static const struct i2c_device_id it66121_id[] = {
>  	{ "it66121", (kernel_ulong_t) &it66121_chip_info },
> +	{ "it66122", (kernel_ulong_t) &it66121_chip_info },
>  	{ "it6610", (kernel_ulong_t) &it6610_chip_info },
>  	{ }
>  };