On Thu, 6 Jun 2024, at 9:32 PM, Maxime Ripard wrote: Hi Maxime, thanks for reviewing. > Where has this consensus been found? As Neil notes Conor suggested it [1], and we did consider Hironori's suggestion [2] of using anbernic as the vendor prefix, although my (not strong) feeling at the time was because Anbernic is not the panel vendor, just integrating an unknown OEM's panel into their devices, so at the time I fit was not quite accurate to say Anbernic was the vendor. Some discussion was also had on IRC at #linux-sunxi [3]. Admittedly not a *broad* consensus, but all offered opinions were taken and the patch was accepted subsequently. > For this kind of cases, we usually use the device it's attached to as > the vendor, so anbernic in this case. Can you send a followup patch? Thanks for the clarification, I was not aware of this. Happy to prepare one but will perhaps wait to see if there are any other comments. > Maxime Regards, Ryan [1] https://lore.kernel.org/dri-devel/20240525-velvet-citable-a45dd06847a7@spud/ [2] https://lore.kernel.org/dri-devel/CAG40kxGEw4AyHk3P_dixKRdesGT0pLtMfpYcCCTbVGUs2NMD-w@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx/ [3] https://oftc.irclog.whitequark.org/linux-sunxi/2024-05-27#332264
