On Thu, 22 Jun 2023 at 13:52, Linus Walleij <linus.walleij@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > On Wed, Jun 21, 2023 at 5:09 PM Paulo Pavacic <pavacic.p@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > A lot of modifications to st7701 are required. I believe it would > > result in a driver that doesn't look or work the same. e.g compare > > delays between initialization sequences of panel-fannal-c3004 and > > panel-st7701. I think it would be optimal to create st7701s driver and > > have special handling for st7701s panels. If there was a flag for > > whether panel is st7701 or st7701s it would end up looking like a > > mess. > > What matters is if the original authors of the old st7701 driver are > around and reviewing and testing patches at all. What we need is > active maintainers. (Added Jagan, Marek & Maya). > > I buy the reasoning that the st7701s is perhaps substantially different > from st7701. > > If st7701s is very different then I suppose it needs a separate driver, > then all we need to to name the driver properly, i.e. > panel-sitronix-st7701s.c. I agree with what Linus mentioned. 1. If the panel is designed on top of ST7701 then add driver data on the existing panel-st7701 driver with this panel. 2. If the panel is designed on top of ST7701S - ST7701 and ST7701S are completely different in terms of the command set and init sequence then add panel-sitronix-st7701s.c 3. If the panel is designed on top ST7701S and if the commands set is the same as ST7701 but the init sequence is different then it is possible to use the existing st7701 driver with the init sequence as in driver data. Thanks, Jagan.
