On Thu, Aug 27, 2020 at 11:04 AM Linus Walleij <linus.walleij@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On Tue, Aug 18, 2020 at 7:10 PM Sam Ravnborg <sam@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > How does this patchset relate to the patchset posted by Paul? > > https://lore.kernel.org/dri-devel/20200727164613.19744-1-paul@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx/ > > Not much. S6E63M0 uses "spi" as it is right now and is not using > the existing DBI code. > > So it would require it to start using the DBI core to begin with. > If it can. Which is kind of an orthogonal task. > > What would be the defining character for it to > be "DBI"? I do see that the driver sends MIPI standard commands > over SPI. I suspect this is another standard without public specs... > > > Seems that two different approcahes are used for the same type of > > problem. > > This approach is based on the approach from IIO, se e.g.: > drivers/iio/accel/bmc150-accel-core.c > drivers/iio/accel/bmc150-accel.h > drivers/iio/accel/bmc150-accel-i2c.c > drivers/iio/accel/bmc150-accel-spi.c > > > Is it possible to find a common solution? > > I'm happy to rework it any direction. If the other patch set is going to > take time to finalize (as in: will not merge it the coming week, need to > hack and stuff) then I'd prefer to apply this so I know my display works > in v5.10. I can certainly rework it into Paul's framework when that > arrives. Is it OK to merge this as-is? I'm fishing for an ACK here... I will certainly adapt to the DBI framework when/if it arrives, and I think my track record makes that claim believeable. Yours, Linus Walleij _______________________________________________ dri-devel mailing list dri-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/dri-devel
