Hi, On Thu, Jul 18, 2024 at 2:36 PM Dmitry Baryshkov <dmitry.baryshkov@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > On Thu, Jul 18, 2024 at 11:44:32AM GMT, Rob Clark wrote: > > From: Rob Clark <robdclark@xxxxxxxxxxxx> > > > > The Samsung ATNA45DC02 panel is an AMOLED eDP panel, similar to the > > existing ATNA45AF01 and ATNA33XC20 panel but with a higher resolution. > > > > Signed-off-by: Rob Clark <robdclark@xxxxxxxxxxxx> > > --- > > .../devicetree/bindings/display/panel/samsung,atna33xc20.yaml | 2 ++ > > 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+) > > > > diff --git a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/display/panel/samsung,atna33xc20.yaml b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/display/panel/samsung,atna33xc20.yaml > > index d668e8d0d296..284a4ee79bbf 100644 > > --- a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/display/panel/samsung,atna33xc20.yaml > > +++ b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/display/panel/samsung,atna33xc20.yaml > > @@ -19,6 +19,8 @@ properties: > > - samsung,atna33xc20 > > # Samsung 14.5" WQXGA+ (2880x1800 pixels) eDP AMOLED panel > > - samsung,atna45af01 > > + # Samsung 14.5" 3K (2944x1840 pixels) eDP AMOLED panel > > + - samsung,atna45dc02 Please follow what we decided in Stephan Gerhold's case and use a fallback compatible. In other words: your patch seems to be based on his v1 and not his v2. > This makes me wonder if we should define a cover compatible like > samsung,amoled-edp-panel. I will bow to the wisdom of the DT folks, but my understanding is that we shouldn't do that. The fallback compatible can just be the compatible of the first panel that we supported that used the same interface. -Doug
