| Message ID | 20240530211415.44201-3-ryan@testtoast.com (mailing list archive) |
|---|---|
| State | New, archived |
| Headers | show |
| Series | Add WL-355608-A8 panel | expand |
On Fri, May 31, 2024 at 09:12:14AM GMT, Ryan Walklin wrote: > The WL-355608-A8 is a 3.5" 640x480@60Hz RGB LCD display used in a > number of handheld gaming devices made by Anbernic. By consensus a > vendor prefix is not provided as the panel OEM is unknown. Where has this consensus been found? I had a look at the previous discussions, and I can't find any consensus being reached there. And for that kind of thing, having the ack or review of any of the DT maintainers would have been great. For this kind of cases, we usually use the device it's attached to as the vendor, so anbernic in this case. Can you send a followup patch? Maxime
On 06/06/2024 11:32, Maxime Ripard wrote: > On Fri, May 31, 2024 at 09:12:14AM GMT, Ryan Walklin wrote: >> The WL-355608-A8 is a 3.5" 640x480@60Hz RGB LCD display used in a >> number of handheld gaming devices made by Anbernic. By consensus a >> vendor prefix is not provided as the panel OEM is unknown. > > Where has this consensus been found? > > I had a look at the previous discussions, and I can't find any consensus > being reached there. And for that kind of thing, having the ack or > review of any of the DT maintainers would have been great. There was a consensus with Conor, this is why he acked v2, see https://lore.kernel.org/all/20240525-velvet-citable-a45dd06847a7@spud/ ``` I think if we genuinely do not know what the vendor is then we just don't have a prefix. ``` I agree with Conor so I applied the patchset after Connor reviewed it and the comment was fixed in v3: https://lore.kernel.org/all/20240530-satchel-playgroup-e8aa6937b8b9@spud/ > > For this kind of cases, we usually use the device it's attached to as > the vendor, so anbernic in this case. Can you send a followup patch? > > Maxime Neil
On Thu, 6 Jun 2024, at 9:32 PM, Maxime Ripard wrote: Hi Maxime, thanks for reviewing. > Where has this consensus been found? As Neil notes Conor suggested it [1], and we did consider Hironori's suggestion [2] of using anbernic as the vendor prefix, although my (not strong) feeling at the time was because Anbernic is not the panel vendor, just integrating an unknown OEM's panel into their devices, so at the time I fit was not quite accurate to say Anbernic was the vendor. Some discussion was also had on IRC at #linux-sunxi [3]. Admittedly not a *broad* consensus, but all offered opinions were taken and the patch was accepted subsequently. > For this kind of cases, we usually use the device it's attached to as > the vendor, so anbernic in this case. Can you send a followup patch? Thanks for the clarification, I was not aware of this. Happy to prepare one but will perhaps wait to see if there are any other comments. > Maxime Regards, Ryan [1] https://lore.kernel.org/dri-devel/20240525-velvet-citable-a45dd06847a7@spud/ [2] https://lore.kernel.org/dri-devel/CAG40kxGEw4AyHk3P_dixKRdesGT0pLtMfpYcCCTbVGUs2NMD-w@mail.gmail.com/ [3] https://oftc.irclog.whitequark.org/linux-sunxi/2024-05-27#332264
On Thu, Jun 06, 2024 at 11:37:31AM GMT, Neil Armstrong wrote: > On 06/06/2024 11:32, Maxime Ripard wrote: > > On Fri, May 31, 2024 at 09:12:14AM GMT, Ryan Walklin wrote: > > > The WL-355608-A8 is a 3.5" 640x480@60Hz RGB LCD display used in a > > > number of handheld gaming devices made by Anbernic. By consensus a > > > vendor prefix is not provided as the panel OEM is unknown. > > > > Where has this consensus been found? > > > > I had a look at the previous discussions, and I can't find any consensus > > being reached there. And for that kind of thing, having the ack or > > review of any of the DT maintainers would have been great. > > There was a consensus with Conor, this is why he acked v2, see > https://lore.kernel.org/all/20240525-velvet-citable-a45dd06847a7@spud/ It's probably a matter of semantics here, but if it's with only one person, it's not a consensus but an agreement. > ``` > I think if we genuinely do not know what the vendor is then we just > don't have a prefix. > ``` And even then, I don't interpret Conor's statement as a formal agreement but rather an acknowledgment of the issue. > I agree with Conor so I applied the patchset after Connor reviewed it and the comment was fixed in v3: > https://lore.kernel.org/all/20240530-satchel-playgroup-e8aa6937b8b9@spud/ Yeah, I know. Still, it's a major deviation to what we've always been doing, getting the DT maintainers voice on that would have been a good idea. Maxime
On Thu, Jun 06, 2024 at 09:48:54PM GMT, Ryan Walklin wrote: > On Thu, 6 Jun 2024, at 9:32 PM, Maxime Ripard wrote: > Hi Maxime, thanks for reviewing. > > > Where has this consensus been found? > > As Neil notes Conor suggested it [1], and we did consider Hironori's > suggestion [2] of using anbernic as the vendor prefix, although my > (not strong) feeling at the time was because Anbernic is not the panel > vendor, just integrating an unknown OEM's panel into their devices, so > at the time I fit was not quite accurate to say Anbernic was the > vendor. > > Some discussion was also had on IRC at #linux-sunxi [3]. Admittedly > not a *broad* consensus, but all offered opinions were taken and the > patch was accepted subsequently. Respectfully, #linux-sunxi isn't the persons you should be discussing this with. Maxime
On Thu, Jun 06, 2024 at 01:23:03PM +0200, Maxime Ripard wrote: > On Thu, Jun 06, 2024 at 11:37:31AM GMT, Neil Armstrong wrote: > > On 06/06/2024 11:32, Maxime Ripard wrote: > > > On Fri, May 31, 2024 at 09:12:14AM GMT, Ryan Walklin wrote: > > > > The WL-355608-A8 is a 3.5" 640x480@60Hz RGB LCD display used in a > > > > number of handheld gaming devices made by Anbernic. By consensus a > > > > vendor prefix is not provided as the panel OEM is unknown. > > > > > > Where has this consensus been found? > > > > > > I had a look at the previous discussions, and I can't find any consensus > > > being reached there. And for that kind of thing, having the ack or > > > review of any of the DT maintainers would have been great. > > > > There was a consensus with Conor, this is why he acked v2, see > > https://lore.kernel.org/all/20240525-velvet-citable-a45dd06847a7@spud/ > > It's probably a matter of semantics here, but if it's with only one > person, it's not a consensus but an agreement. > > > ``` > > I think if we genuinely do not know what the vendor is then we just > > don't have a prefix. > > ``` > > And even then, I don't interpret Conor's statement as a formal agreement > but rather an acknowledgment of the issue. I mean, I specifically left an r-b below that line in v2: https://lore.kernel.org/all/20240530-satchel-playgroup-e8aa6937b8b9@spud/ I'm not a displays guy, so my sources were limited to what I could find from search engines, but I spent some time looking for an actual vendor of the panel and could not. All I found was various listings on places like AliExpress that did not mention an manufacturer. I'd rather not invent a vendor because we could not find the actual vendor of the panel & it seemed rather unreasonable to block support for the device on the basis of not being able to figure out the vendor. If you, as someone knowledgeable on displays, can figure the vendor out, then yeah we should definitely add it. > > I agree with Conor so I applied the patchset after Connor reviewed it and the comment was fixed in v3: > > https://lore.kernel.org/all/20240530-satchel-playgroup-e8aa6937b8b9@spud/ > > Yeah, I know. Still, it's a major deviation to what we've always been > doing, getting the DT maintainers voice on that would have been a good > idea. Is it a consensus of DT maintainers you're looking for? Cheers, Conor.
On 06/06/2024 13:23, Maxime Ripard wrote: > On Thu, Jun 06, 2024 at 11:37:31AM GMT, Neil Armstrong wrote: >> On 06/06/2024 11:32, Maxime Ripard wrote: >>> On Fri, May 31, 2024 at 09:12:14AM GMT, Ryan Walklin wrote: >>>> The WL-355608-A8 is a 3.5" 640x480@60Hz RGB LCD display used in a >>>> number of handheld gaming devices made by Anbernic. By consensus a >>>> vendor prefix is not provided as the panel OEM is unknown. >>> >>> Where has this consensus been found? >>> >>> I had a look at the previous discussions, and I can't find any consensus >>> being reached there. And for that kind of thing, having the ack or >>> review of any of the DT maintainers would have been great. >> >> There was a consensus with Conor, this is why he acked v2, see >> https://lore.kernel.org/all/20240525-velvet-citable-a45dd06847a7@spud/ > > It's probably a matter of semantics here, but if it's with only one > person, it's not a consensus but an agreement. > >> ``` >> I think if we genuinely do not know what the vendor is then we just >> don't have a prefix. >> ``` > > And even then, I don't interpret Conor's statement as a formal agreement > but rather an acknowledgment of the issue. Well since both maintainers (DT and Panel) agreed, isn't it all good ? > >> I agree with Conor so I applied the patchset after Connor reviewed it and the comment was fixed in v3: >> https://lore.kernel.org/all/20240530-satchel-playgroup-e8aa6937b8b9@spud/ > > Yeah, I know. Still, it's a major deviation to what we've always been > doing, getting the DT maintainers voice on that would have been a good > idea. I consider Conor's voice enough as one of the DT maintainers. Neil > > Maxime
Hi Conor, Sorry, I missed the news of you becoming a DT maintainer, so most of my previous points are obviously bogus. And congrats :) On Thu, Jun 06, 2024 at 12:51:33PM GMT, Conor Dooley wrote: > On Thu, Jun 06, 2024 at 01:23:03PM +0200, Maxime Ripard wrote: > > On Thu, Jun 06, 2024 at 11:37:31AM GMT, Neil Armstrong wrote: > > > On 06/06/2024 11:32, Maxime Ripard wrote: > > > > On Fri, May 31, 2024 at 09:12:14AM GMT, Ryan Walklin wrote: > > > > > The WL-355608-A8 is a 3.5" 640x480@60Hz RGB LCD display used in a > > > > > number of handheld gaming devices made by Anbernic. By consensus a > > > > > vendor prefix is not provided as the panel OEM is unknown. > > > > > > > > Where has this consensus been found? > > > > > > > > I had a look at the previous discussions, and I can't find any consensus > > > > being reached there. And for that kind of thing, having the ack or > > > > review of any of the DT maintainers would have been great. > > > > > > There was a consensus with Conor, this is why he acked v2, see > > > https://lore.kernel.org/all/20240525-velvet-citable-a45dd06847a7@spud/ > > > > It's probably a matter of semantics here, but if it's with only one > > person, it's not a consensus but an agreement. > > > > > ``` > > > I think if we genuinely do not know what the vendor is then we just > > > don't have a prefix. > > > ``` > > > > And even then, I don't interpret Conor's statement as a formal agreement > > but rather an acknowledgment of the issue. > > I mean, I specifically left an r-b below that line in v2: > https://lore.kernel.org/all/20240530-satchel-playgroup-e8aa6937b8b9@spud/ > > I'm not a displays guy, so my sources were limited to what I could find > from search engines, but I spent some time looking for an actual vendor > of the panel and could not. All I found was various listings on places > like AliExpress that did not mention an manufacturer. I'd rather not > invent a vendor because we could not find the actual vendor of the > panel & it seemed rather unreasonable to block support for the device > on the basis of not being able to figure out the vendor. If you, as > someone knowledgeable on displays, can figure the vendor out, then > yeah we should definitely add it. It's still a bit surprising to me. We've merged[1][2][3][4], and are still merging[5], panels from this particular vendor that have no clearly identified OEMs. Just like any other panel, really. We almost *never* have the actual OEM, we just go with whatever is the easiest to identify it. Plus, if there ever is another WL-355608-A8 part from a completely unrelated vendor, then you'll have a naming clash with no clear indication about which is which. Maxime 1: https://lore.kernel.org/all/20230426143213.4178586-1-macroalpha82@gmail.com/ 2: https://lore.kernel.org/all/20231003163355.143704-1-macroalpha82@gmail.com/ 3: https://lore.kernel.org/all/20231117202536.1387815-1-macroalpha82@gmail.com/ 4: https://lore.kernel.org/all/20231208154847.130615-1-macroalpha82@gmail.com/ 5: https://lore.kernel.org/dri-devel/20240618081515.1215552-1-kikuchan98@gmail.com/
On Tue, Jun 18, 2024 at 11:04:09AM +0200, Maxime Ripard wrote: > Hi Conor, > > Sorry, I missed the news of you becoming a DT maintainer, so most of my > previous points are obviously bogus. And congrats :) I've been doing it for over a year, so news travels to some corners slowly I guess. I'm not just being a pest in dozens of subsystems for fun! > On Thu, Jun 06, 2024 at 12:51:33PM GMT, Conor Dooley wrote: > > On Thu, Jun 06, 2024 at 01:23:03PM +0200, Maxime Ripard wrote: > > > On Thu, Jun 06, 2024 at 11:37:31AM GMT, Neil Armstrong wrote: > > > > On 06/06/2024 11:32, Maxime Ripard wrote: > > > > > On Fri, May 31, 2024 at 09:12:14AM GMT, Ryan Walklin wrote: > > > > > > The WL-355608-A8 is a 3.5" 640x480@60Hz RGB LCD display used in a > > > > > > number of handheld gaming devices made by Anbernic. By consensus a > > > > > > vendor prefix is not provided as the panel OEM is unknown. > > > > > > > > > > Where has this consensus been found? > > > > > > > > > > I had a look at the previous discussions, and I can't find any consensus > > > > > being reached there. And for that kind of thing, having the ack or > > > > > review of any of the DT maintainers would have been great. > > > > > > > > There was a consensus with Conor, this is why he acked v2, see > > > > https://lore.kernel.org/all/20240525-velvet-citable-a45dd06847a7@spud/ > > > > > > It's probably a matter of semantics here, but if it's with only one > > > person, it's not a consensus but an agreement. > > > > > > > ``` > > > > I think if we genuinely do not know what the vendor is then we just > > > > don't have a prefix. > > > > ``` > > > > > > And even then, I don't interpret Conor's statement as a formal agreement > > > but rather an acknowledgment of the issue. > > > > I mean, I specifically left an r-b below that line in v2: > > https://lore.kernel.org/all/20240530-satchel-playgroup-e8aa6937b8b9@spud/ > > > > I'm not a displays guy, so my sources were limited to what I could find > > from search engines, but I spent some time looking for an actual vendor > > of the panel and could not. All I found was various listings on places > > like AliExpress that did not mention an manufacturer. I'd rather not > > invent a vendor because we could not find the actual vendor of the > > panel & it seemed rather unreasonable to block support for the device > > on the basis of not being able to figure out the vendor. If you, as > > someone knowledgeable on displays, can figure the vendor out, then > > yeah we should definitely add it. > > It's still a bit surprising to me. We've merged[1][2][3][4], and are still > merging[5], panels from this particular vendor that have no clearly > identified OEMs. Just like any other panel, really. We almost *never* > have the actual OEM, we just go with whatever is the easiest to identify > it. It wasn't (isn't?) clear to me that Abernic is even the vendor of the panel, just that it works for their devices. If there's an established policy here of making up vendors for these panels, then sure, override me and use them as the prefix. > Plus, if there ever is another WL-355608-A8 part from a completely > unrelated vendor, then you'll have a naming clash with no clear > indication about which is which. > > 1: https://lore.kernel.org/all/20230426143213.4178586-1-macroalpha82@gmail.com/ > 2: https://lore.kernel.org/all/20231003163355.143704-1-macroalpha82@gmail.com/ > 3: https://lore.kernel.org/all/20231117202536.1387815-1-macroalpha82@gmail.com/ > 4: https://lore.kernel.org/all/20231208154847.130615-1-macroalpha82@gmail.com/ > 5: https://lore.kernel.org/dri-devel/20240618081515.1215552-1-kikuchan98@gmail.com/
On 18/06/2024 13:13, Conor Dooley wrote: > On Tue, Jun 18, 2024 at 11:04:09AM +0200, Maxime Ripard wrote: >> Hi Conor, >> >> Sorry, I missed the news of you becoming a DT maintainer, so most of my >> previous points are obviously bogus. And congrats :) > > I've been doing it for over a year, so news travels to some corners slowly > I guess. I'm not just being a pest in dozens of subsystems for fun! > >> On Thu, Jun 06, 2024 at 12:51:33PM GMT, Conor Dooley wrote: >>> On Thu, Jun 06, 2024 at 01:23:03PM +0200, Maxime Ripard wrote: >>>> On Thu, Jun 06, 2024 at 11:37:31AM GMT, Neil Armstrong wrote: >>>>> On 06/06/2024 11:32, Maxime Ripard wrote: >>>>>> On Fri, May 31, 2024 at 09:12:14AM GMT, Ryan Walklin wrote: >>>>>>> The WL-355608-A8 is a 3.5" 640x480@60Hz RGB LCD display used in a >>>>>>> number of handheld gaming devices made by Anbernic. By consensus a >>>>>>> vendor prefix is not provided as the panel OEM is unknown. >>>>>> >>>>>> Where has this consensus been found? >>>>>> >>>>>> I had a look at the previous discussions, and I can't find any consensus >>>>>> being reached there. And for that kind of thing, having the ack or >>>>>> review of any of the DT maintainers would have been great. >>>>> >>>>> There was a consensus with Conor, this is why he acked v2, see >>>>> https://lore.kernel.org/all/20240525-velvet-citable-a45dd06847a7@spud/ >>>> >>>> It's probably a matter of semantics here, but if it's with only one >>>> person, it's not a consensus but an agreement. >>>> >>>>> ``` >>>>> I think if we genuinely do not know what the vendor is then we just >>>>> don't have a prefix. >>>>> ``` >>>> >>>> And even then, I don't interpret Conor's statement as a formal agreement >>>> but rather an acknowledgment of the issue. >>> >>> I mean, I specifically left an r-b below that line in v2: >>> https://lore.kernel.org/all/20240530-satchel-playgroup-e8aa6937b8b9@spud/ >>> >>> I'm not a displays guy, so my sources were limited to what I could find >>> from search engines, but I spent some time looking for an actual vendor >>> of the panel and could not. All I found was various listings on places >>> like AliExpress that did not mention an manufacturer. I'd rather not >>> invent a vendor because we could not find the actual vendor of the >>> panel & it seemed rather unreasonable to block support for the device >>> on the basis of not being able to figure out the vendor. If you, as >>> someone knowledgeable on displays, can figure the vendor out, then >>> yeah we should definitely add it. >> >> It's still a bit surprising to me. We've merged[1][2][3][4], and are still >> merging[5], panels from this particular vendor that have no clearly >> identified OEMs. Just like any other panel, really. We almost *never* >> have the actual OEM, we just go with whatever is the easiest to identify >> it. > > It wasn't (isn't?) clear to me that Abernic is even the vendor of the > panel, just that it works for their devices. If there's an established > policy here of making up vendors for these panels, then sure, override > me and use them as the prefix. > >> Plus, if there ever is another WL-355608-A8 part from a completely >> unrelated vendor, then you'll have a naming clash with no clear >> indication about which is which. Not sure we can say there's an established policy ongoing here, we try to use the marking we find on the panel when possible and when not possible we use the vendor + name of the device in last ressort. Neil >> >> 1: https://lore.kernel.org/all/20230426143213.4178586-1-macroalpha82@gmail.com/ >> 2: https://lore.kernel.org/all/20231003163355.143704-1-macroalpha82@gmail.com/ >> 3: https://lore.kernel.org/all/20231117202536.1387815-1-macroalpha82@gmail.com/ >> 4: https://lore.kernel.org/all/20231208154847.130615-1-macroalpha82@gmail.com/ >> 5: https://lore.kernel.org/dri-devel/20240618081515.1215552-1-kikuchan98@gmail.com/ > >
On Tue, Jun 18, 2024 at 02:05:50PM GMT, Neil Armstrong wrote: > On 18/06/2024 13:13, Conor Dooley wrote: > > On Tue, Jun 18, 2024 at 11:04:09AM +0200, Maxime Ripard wrote: > > > Hi Conor, > > > > > > Sorry, I missed the news of you becoming a DT maintainer, so most of my > > > previous points are obviously bogus. And congrats :) > > > > I've been doing it for over a year, so news travels to some corners slowly > > I guess. I'm not just being a pest in dozens of subsystems for fun! > > > > > On Thu, Jun 06, 2024 at 12:51:33PM GMT, Conor Dooley wrote: > > > > On Thu, Jun 06, 2024 at 01:23:03PM +0200, Maxime Ripard wrote: > > > > > On Thu, Jun 06, 2024 at 11:37:31AM GMT, Neil Armstrong wrote: > > > > > > On 06/06/2024 11:32, Maxime Ripard wrote: > > > > > > > On Fri, May 31, 2024 at 09:12:14AM GMT, Ryan Walklin wrote: > > > > > > > > The WL-355608-A8 is a 3.5" 640x480@60Hz RGB LCD display used in a > > > > > > > > number of handheld gaming devices made by Anbernic. By consensus a > > > > > > > > vendor prefix is not provided as the panel OEM is unknown. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Where has this consensus been found? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I had a look at the previous discussions, and I can't find any consensus > > > > > > > being reached there. And for that kind of thing, having the ack or > > > > > > > review of any of the DT maintainers would have been great. > > > > > > > > > > > > There was a consensus with Conor, this is why he acked v2, see > > > > > > https://lore.kernel.org/all/20240525-velvet-citable-a45dd06847a7@spud/ > > > > > > > > > > It's probably a matter of semantics here, but if it's with only one > > > > > person, it's not a consensus but an agreement. > > > > > > > > > > > ``` > > > > > > I think if we genuinely do not know what the vendor is then we just > > > > > > don't have a prefix. > > > > > > ``` > > > > > > > > > > And even then, I don't interpret Conor's statement as a formal agreement > > > > > but rather an acknowledgment of the issue. > > > > > > > > I mean, I specifically left an r-b below that line in v2: > > > > https://lore.kernel.org/all/20240530-satchel-playgroup-e8aa6937b8b9@spud/ > > > > > > > > I'm not a displays guy, so my sources were limited to what I could find > > > > from search engines, but I spent some time looking for an actual vendor > > > > of the panel and could not. All I found was various listings on places > > > > like AliExpress that did not mention an manufacturer. I'd rather not > > > > invent a vendor because we could not find the actual vendor of the > > > > panel & it seemed rather unreasonable to block support for the device > > > > on the basis of not being able to figure out the vendor. If you, as > > > > someone knowledgeable on displays, can figure the vendor out, then > > > > yeah we should definitely add it. > > > > > > It's still a bit surprising to me. We've merged[1][2][3][4], and are still > > > merging[5], panels from this particular vendor that have no clearly > > > identified OEMs. Just like any other panel, really. We almost *never* > > > have the actual OEM, we just go with whatever is the easiest to identify > > > it. > > > > It wasn't (isn't?) clear to me that Abernic is even the vendor of the > > panel, just that it works for their devices. If there's an established > > policy here of making up vendors for these panels, then sure, override > > me and use them as the prefix. > > > > > Plus, if there ever is another WL-355608-A8 part from a completely > > > unrelated vendor, then you'll have a naming clash with no clear > > > indication about which is which. > > Not sure we can say there's an established policy ongoing here, we try to > use the marking we find on the panel when possible and when not possible > we use the vendor + name of the device in last ressort. So pretty much what I was asking for? We're getting fairly late into the release cycle and I'd like to get it fixed before the release. Can you send a patch to address it please? Maxime
Hi Maxime, On Wed, 26 Jun 2024, at 8:56 PM, Maxime Ripard wrote: > We're getting fairly late into the release cycle and I'd like to get it > fixed before the release. Can you send a patch to address it please? Sure, happy to. So to confirm add 'anbernic' to the vendor binding list and 'anbernic,wl-355608-a8' as the panel compatible? Regards, Ryan
On 26/06/2024 11:10, Ryan Walklin wrote: > Hi Maxime, > > On Wed, 26 Jun 2024, at 8:56 PM, Maxime Ripard wrote: > >> We're getting fairly late into the release cycle and I'd like to get it >> fixed before the release. Can you send a patch to address it please? > > Sure, happy to. So to confirm add 'anbernic' to the vendor binding list and 'anbernic,wl-355608-a8' as the panel compatible? Well anbernic is not the wl-355608-a8 panel manufaturer, so as Maxime is suggesting to use the name of the device where the panel is found like anbernic,rg353v-panel-v2 as submitted in https://lore.kernel.org/all/20230426143213.4178586-2-macroalpha82@gmail.com/ Personally I don't care, if DT maintainers agrees having "wl-355608-a8" as compatible, it's perfectly fine to use it from the driver since it's solely a bindings decision and not a driver design issue. Neil > > Regards, > > Ryan
On Wed, 26 Jun 2024, at 9:16 PM, Neil Armstrong wrote: > Well anbernic is not the wl-355608-a8 panel manufaturer, so as Maxime > is suggesting to use the > name of the device where the panel is found like > anbernic,rg353v-panel-v2 as submitted > in > https://lore.kernel.org/all/20230426143213.4178586-2-macroalpha82@gmail.com/ Show quoted text Understood thanks. I have no strong feelings either, using the device name is sensible. Will prepare a patch. Regards, Ryan (apologies, replying-all this time)
diff --git a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/display/panel/wl-355608-a8.yaml b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/display/panel/wl-355608-a8.yaml new file mode 100644 index 0000000000..e552d01b52 --- /dev/null +++ b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/display/panel/wl-355608-a8.yaml @@ -0,0 +1,60 @@ +# SPDX-License-Identifier: (GPL-2.0-only OR BSD-2-Clause) +%YAML 1.2 +--- +$id: http://devicetree.org/schemas/display/panel/wl-355608-a8.yaml# +$schema: http://devicetree.org/meta-schemas/core.yaml# + +title: WL-355608-A8 3.5" (640x480 pixels) 24-bit IPS LCD panel + +maintainers: + - Ryan Walklin <ryan@testtoast.com> + +allOf: + - $ref: panel-common.yaml# + - $ref: /schemas/spi/spi-peripheral-props.yaml# + +properties: + compatible: + const: wl-355608-a8 + + reg: + maxItems: 1 + + spi-3wire: true + +required: + - compatible + - reg + - port + - power-supply + - reset-gpios + +unevaluatedProperties: false + +examples: + - | + #include <dt-bindings/gpio/gpio.h> + + spi { + #address-cells = <1>; + #size-cells = <0>; + + panel@0 { + compatible = "wl-355608-a8"; + reg = <0>; + + spi-3wire; + spi-max-frequency = <3125000>; + + reset-gpios = <&pio 8 14 GPIO_ACTIVE_LOW>; // PI14 + + backlight = <&backlight>; + power-supply = <®_lcd>; + + port { + endpoint { + remote-endpoint = <&tcon_lcd0_out_lcd>; + }; + }; + }; + };