On Thu, Aug 9, 2018 at 12:53 PM Thierry Reding <thierry.reding@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: [Me] > > I suspect this is indeed a panel driver and not a panel with integrated > > driver. I think the best is to define two compatible strings like > > we do for ILI9322: > > "truly,nt35597", "qcom,reference-design-name-display"; > > I don't understand why we need the two compatible strings for this. > Having "truly,nt35597" isn't quite correct in that case, because in > itself that doesn't contain enough information for any programming. > > If that chip can indeed be used to drive different panels, what we > really need is the a compatible string that describes the complete > assembly. In the driver we could then rely on parameterized common > code that the panel driver can call into in order to program the > driver chip. Good point. Rob asked the same for the TPO driver, but that case is different. For the TPO driver we had a situation where the display driver was kind of self-identifying, using HW straps to set up the mode, so the kernel driver only needed to read some registers to get basic functionality up, so it could use the compatible of the display driver itself. In such cases it is useful with two compatible strings as there are always quirks (that is why we always have two compatible strings for SoCs) and a specific display/system may need e.g. specific gamma correction values even if basic graphics come up with just the display driver compatible strings. So I would say it depens on how "plug-n-playsy" the display driver is. Yours, Linus Walleij _______________________________________________ dri-devel mailing list dri-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/dri-devel
