On 18.02.2023 11:14, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote: > On 17/02/2023 22:13, Bryan O'Donoghue wrote: >> On 17/02/2023 12:24, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote: >>> First, it would be nice to know what was the intention of Bryan's commit? >> >> Sorry I've been grazing this thread but, not responding. >> >> - qcom,dsi-ctrl-6g-qcm2290 >> >> is non-compliant with qcom,socid-dsi-ctrl which is our desired naming >> convention, so that's what the deprecation is about i.e. moving this >> compat to "qcom,qcm2290-dsi-ctrl" > > OK, then there was no intention to deprecate qcom,mdss-dsi-ctrl and it > should be left as allowed compatible. Not sure if we're on the same page. It wasn't intended to deprecate [1] "qcom,qcm2290-dsi-ctrl", "qcom-mdss-dsi-ctrl"; (newly-introduced in Bryan's cleanup patchset) but it was intended to deprecate [2] "qcom,dsi-ctrl-6g-qcm2290"; which was introduced long before that *and* used in the 6115 dt (and it still is in linux-next today, as my cleanup hasn't landed yet). [3] "qcom,dsi-ctrl-6g-qcm2290", "qcom,mdss-dsi-ctrl" was never used (and should never be, considering there's a proper compatible [1] now) so adding it to bindings didn't solve the undocumented-ness issue. Plus the fallback would have never worked back then, as the DSI hw revision check would spit out 2.4.1 or 2.4. which is SC7180 or SDM845 and then it would never match the base register, as they're waay different. Konrad > > Best regards, > Krzysztof >
