On 2/1/22 15:02, Andy Shevchenko wrote: > 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. > See the comment from Geert. I believe we should use the existing binding. > *) But even though I think it would be good if you take the old one under your > maintainership. > Sure, now that I got familiar with the ssd130x devices, I'll be happy to help with the ssd1307fb driver maintainership. Best regards, -- Javier Martinez Canillas Linux Engineering Red Hat
