On 18/07/2024 02:21, Doug Anderson wrote: > Conor (and/or) Krzysztof and Rob, > > On Mon, Jul 15, 2024 at 8:31 AM Conor Dooley <conor@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: >> >> On Mon, Jul 15, 2024 at 02:15:37PM +0200, Stephan Gerhold wrote: >>> The Samsung ATNA45AF01 panel is an AMOLED eDP panel that has backlight >>> control over the DP AUX channel. While it works almost correctly with the >>> generic "edp-panel" compatible, the backlight needs special handling to >>> work correctly. It is similar to the existing ATNA33XC20 panel, just with >>> a larger resolution and size. >>> >>> Add a new "samsung,atna45af01" compatible to describe this panel in the DT. >>> Use the existing "samsung,atna33xc20" as fallback compatible since existing >>> drivers should work as-is, given that resolution and size are discoverable >>> through the eDP link. >>> >>> Signed-off-by: Stephan Gerhold <stephan.gerhold@xxxxxxxxxx> >> >> Acked-by: Conor Dooley <conor.dooley@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> > > Can you comment on whether you would consider this bindings a "Fix" > since it's a dependency for later patches in this series (which are > "Fix"es) to pass dtbs_check? See: > > https://lore.kernel.org/r/4bca316a-2334-425b-87a6-e1bb241d26b5@xxxxxxxxxx The patch itself is not a fix, for sure, but it might be a dependency of a fix (which you wrote above), thus could be pulled to stable as a dependency. I do not care about dtbs_check warnings in stable kernels, mostly because dtbs_check warnings depend heavily on dtschema and dtschema follows mainline kernel. Basically if you had warnings-free v6.8 but try to run dtbs_check now with latest dtschema, your results will differ. At some point in the future, I could imagine "no new dtbs_check warnings in stable kernels" requirement or at least preference, but so far I don't think there is any benefit. Best regards, Krzysztof
