On Tue, Feb 01, 2022 at 12:45:53PM +0100, Javier Martinez Canillas wrote: > On 2/1/22 10:44, Andy Shevchenko wrote: > > On Tue, Feb 01, 2022 at 01:14:22AM +0100, Javier Martinez Canillas wrote: ... > > The problem with no backward compatibility means that removal of old driver > > makes users unhappy since DT is kinda ABI and we do not break it. > > > > I think that's the crux of the issue. Do we want people to update their > kernel but using their existing Device Tree and be able to switch to the > DRM driver ? > > My take is that we should and that's why I kept the backward compatibility. > > Maybe we could do that in the meantime and at some point introduce new DT > bindings (with a different compatible string) that would use the latest > and greatest conventions in DT ? That seems to be a good compromise. I have over-read in this discussion that current binding is not fully correct from hw perspective. If it's indeed the case (and I believe it's), then probably we should come with brand new driver with ssd130x name and incompatible bindingas (*). Otherwise in this driver we continue to be incorrect in them. *) But even though I think it would be good if you take the old one under your maintainership. -- With Best Regards, Andy Shevchenko
