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
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
