On 16/06/2023 10:40, Shawn Sung (宋孝謙) wrote:
> On Fri, 2023-06-16 at 10:07 +0200, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote:
>>
>> External email : Please do not click links or open attachments until
>> you have verified the sender or the content.
>> On 16/06/2023 07:29, Shawn Sung (宋孝謙) wrote:
>>> Hi Krzysztof,
>>>
>>> Thanks for the reminder, because MT8188 is not related to MT8173,
>>
>> How does it matter?
>
> Because MT8188 Merge is fully compatible with MT8195, we didn't add its
> compatible name to the driver, but just list it in dt-bindings, and use
> MT8195's compatible name to match the ID in device table. For example,
> in mt8188.dtsi:
>
> merge1: merge@1c10c000 {
> compatible = "mediatek,mt8188-disp-merge", "mediatek,mt8195-
> disp-merge";
> ...
> };
>
> If we add MT8188 Merge as an enum with MT8173, then our device tree
> must be as below, and nothing will match in Merge driver.
>
> merge1: merge@1c10c000 {
> compatible = "mediatek,mt8188-disp-
> merge";
> ...
> };
No, why? It would be incorrect with existing bindings. Again, on what
tree are you working?
>
>>
>>> I’ll
>>> keep it as it is for now, however, I do find that MT8195 doesn’t
>> exist
>>> in this dt-bindings which it should be, so there may be conflicts
>> when
>>> this series is going to be merged.
>>
>> Don't top post.
>>
>> No, rebase on current next and implement my comment.
>
> Will rebase linux-next in the next version.
Rebase now - for this discussion.
Best regards,
Krzysztof
