On 18/02/2023 12:23, Konrad Dybcio wrote: > > > 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. We are. > > 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. All these were known. I was asking about "qcom,mdss-dsi-ctrl", because the original intention also affects the way we want to keep it now (unless there are other reasons). Best regards, Krzysztof
