On 10/11/2023 15:28, Chris Morgan wrote: > On Fri, Nov 10, 2023 at 02:11:58PM +0100, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote: >> On 09/11/2023 22:50, Chris Morgan wrote: >>> From: Chris Morgan <macromorgan@xxxxxxxxxxx> >>> >>> Update the NewVision NV3051D compatible strings by adding a new panel, >>> the powkiddy,rk2023-panel, and removing another entry, the >>> anbernic,rg353v-panel. The rg353v-panel is exactly identical to the >>> rg353p-panel and is not currently in use by any existing device tree. >>> The rk2023-panel is similar to the rg353p-panel but has slightly >>> different timings. >>> >>> I originally wrote the driver checking for the newvision,nv3051d >>> compatible string which worked fine when there was only 1 panel type. >>> When I added support for the 351v-panel I *should* have changed how the >>> compatible string was handled, but instead I simply added a check in the >>> probe function to look for the secondary string of >>> "anbernic,rg351v-panel". Now that I am adding the 3rd panel type of >>> "powkiddy,rk2023-panel" I am correcting the driver to do it the right >>> way by checking for the specific compatibles. >> >> I don't understand how any of this driver behavior is a reason to drop >> rg353v. You wrote two paragraphs to justify this removal, but I feel the >> only reason is that rg353v is just not needed, because it is duplicating >> rg353p? Is this right? You actually did not write it explicitly... > > Sorry if I wasn't clear, I did note that the rg353p-panel is exactly > identical to the rg353v-panel. Should I add additional details beyond > that to clarify? The entire paragraph about driver feels redundant. Your first paragraph should still say why you remove it. Best regards, Krzysztof
