On Fri, 28 Jun 2024, at 5:59 AM, Maxime Ripard wrote: > On Wed, Jun 26, 2024 at 04:34:11PM GMT, Conor Dooley wrote: >> On Wed, Jun 26, 2024 at 05:04:19PM +0200, Maxime Ripard wrote: >> > On Wed, Jun 26, 2024 at 02:25:54PM GMT, Neil Armstrong wrote: >> > > Can it be more specific ? because there's a lot of rg35xx defined in bindings: >> > > anbernic,rg351m >> > > anbernic,rg351v >> > > anbernic,rg353p >> > > anbernic,rg353ps >> > > anbernic,rg353v >> > > anbernic,rg353vs >> > > anbernic,rg35xx-2024 >> > > anbernic,rg35xx-plus >> > > anbernic,rg35xx-h Just to note only the three rg35xx-* devices use this particular panel. >> > >> > Yeah, if we have an identified model name, we should probably use that, >> > with a comment that we couldn't figure out what the vendor was and thus >> > went for anbernic. >> >> What's wrong with using the wl name that already exists as the model? >> Using rg<whatever>-panel is total invention on our part, especially >> seeing as the commit message says that multiple models can use it. > > Yeah, that makes sense, sorry for the noise > Thanks both for the further feedback, agreed logical to use the device vendor and panel serial number, ie "anbernic,wl-355608-a8". Will post a V2 with a comment to that effect. Regards, Ryan
