Hi Dmitry, On Fri, Oct 25, 2024 at 10:14:52AM -0700, Dmitry Torokhov wrote: > On Fri, Oct 25, 2024 at 09:19:14AM -0700, Doug Anderson wrote: > > Hi, > > > > On Fri, Oct 25, 2024 at 8:59 AM Rob Herring <robh@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > > > On Fri, Oct 25, 2024 at 10:29 AM Doug Anderson <dianders@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > > > > > Charles, > > > > > > > > On Fri, Oct 25, 2024 at 5:03 AM Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzk@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > +properties: > > > > > > + compatible: > > > > > > + enum: > > > > > > + - goodix,gt7986u-spi > > > > > > > > > > Compatible is already documented and nothing here explains why we should > > > > > spi variant. > > > > > > > > > > > + > > > > > > + reg: > > > > > > + maxItems: 1 > > > > > > + > > > > > > + interrupts: > > > > > > + maxItems: 1 > > > > > > + > > > > > > + reset-gpios: > > > > > > + maxItems: 1 > > > > > > + > > > > > > + goodix,hid-report-addr: > > > > > > > > > > I do not see this patch addressing previous review. Sending something > > > > > like this as v1 after long discussions also does not help. > > > > > > > > Krzysztof is right that it's better to wait until we get consensus on > > > > the previous discussion before sending a new patch. I know you were > > > > just trying to help move things forward, but because of the way the > > > > email workflow works, sending a new version tends to fork the > > > > discussion into two threads and adds confusion. > > > > > > > > I know Krzysztof and Rob have been silent during our recent > > > > discussion, but it's also a long discussion. I've been assuming that > > > > they will take some time to digest and reply in a little bit. If they > > > > didn't, IMO it would have been reasonable to explicitly ask them for > > > > feedback in the other thread after giving a bit of time. > > > > > > If the firmware creates fundamentally different interfaces, then > > > different compatibles makes sense. If the same driver handles both bus > > > interfaces, then 1 compatible should be fine. The addition of '-spi' > > > to the compatible doesn't give any indication of a different > > > programming model. I wouldn't care except for folks who will see it > > > and just copy it when their only difference is the bus interface and > > > we get to have the same discussion all over again. So if appending > > > '-spi' is the only thing you can come up with, make it abundantly > > > clear so that others don't blindly copy it. The commit msg is useful > > > for convincing us, but not for that purpose. > > > > OK, makes sense. Charles: Can you think of any better description for > > this interface than "goodix,gt7986u-spi"? I suppose you could make it > > super obvious that it's running different firmware with > > "goodix,gt7986u-spifw" and maybe that would be a little better. > > Is there any chance for Microsoft-compatible HID-over-SPI versions of > the firmware for this chip? Will this require new compatible string? Or > it will be a different chip ID and the issue will be moot? > No, the SPI hardware design of this chip does not meet the requirements for the Microsoft HID-over-SPI protocol. A new chip with a new ID will be developed to support the Microsoft HID-over-SPI protocol. Thanks, Charles
