On Wed, Oct 30, 2024 at 11:14:26AM -0700, Doug Anderson wrote: > Hi, > > On Tue, Oct 29, 2024 at 11:57 PM Charles Wang <charles.goodix@xxxxxxxxx> 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. > > > > > > I think what Rob is asking for to make it super obvious is that in the > > > "description" of the binding you mention that in this case we're > > > running a substantially different firmware than GT7986U touchscreens > > > represented by the "goodix,gt7986u" binding and thus is considered a > > > distinct device. > > > > > > At this point, IMO you could wait until Monday in case Krzysztof wants > > > to add his $0.02 worth and then you could send a "v2" patch addressing > > > the comments so far, though of course you could continue to reply to > > > this thread if you have further questions / comments. > > > > > > > Thank you for your explanation, I understand your point. I want to clarify > > that the gt7986u-spi and gt7986u indeed use two entirely different drivers > > and two distinct firmware. > > > > Using "goodix,gt7986u-spi" could indeed cause confusion. How about modifying > > it to "goodix,gt7986u-losto" by adding a special code? > > If "lotso" somehow means something real to people using this product > then that seems OK to me. If "lotso" is just a made up word because > you don't want to use "spi" or "spifw" then it's not great. In either > case you'll want to summarize our discussion here in your > "description" in the yaml and in the commit message. > Okay, got it. > > > Additionally, I would like to confirm: when submitting the v2 patch, should > > it be based on this thread or the previous discussion thread? > > No, v2 should _not_ be In-Reply-To this thread. It'll start a new > thread. You can add a link (via lore.kernel.org/r/<message-id>) to the > old discussion in your cover letter and/or version history. > > Said another way: > * New versions of patches create new threads. > * The fact that new versions of patches create new threads is why > people usually want open questions answered before the next version is > sent. > Okay, thank you very much for your patient explanation. Best regards, Charles
