On Tue, Jan 14, 2025 at 11:11:23AM +0100, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote: > On 14/01/2025 11:00, Dmitry Baryshkov wrote: > > On Tue, 14 Jan 2025 at 09:57, Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzk@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > >> > >> On Mon, Jan 13, 2025 at 04:03:10PM +0800, Yongxing Mou wrote: > >>> +patternProperties: > >>> + "^display-controller@[0-9a-f]+$": > >>> + type: object > >>> + additionalProperties: true > >>> + > >>> + properties: > >>> + compatible: > >>> + items: > >>> + - const: qcom,qcs8300-dpu > >>> + - const: qcom,sa8775p-dpu > >>> + > >>> + "^displayport-controller@[0-9a-f]+$": > >>> + type: object > >>> + additionalProperties: true > >>> + > >>> + properties: > >>> + compatible: > >>> + items: > >>> + - const: qcom,qcs8300-dp > >>> + - const: qcom,sm8650-dp > >> > >> Parts of qcs8300 display are compatible with sa8775p, other parts with > >> sm8650. That's odd or even not correct. Assuming it is actually correct, > >> it deserves explanation in commit msg. > > > > It seems to be correct. These are two different IP blocks with > > different modifications. QCS8300's DP configuration matches the SM8650 > > ([1]), though the DPU is the same as the one on the SA8775P platform. > > > > [1] https://lore.kernel.org/dri-devel/411626da-7563-48fb-ac7c-94f06e73e4b8@xxxxxxxxxxx/ > > That's the driver, so you claim that qcs8300, which is a sa8775p, is not > compatible with sa8775p because of current driver code? You see the > contradiction? sa8775p is not compatible with sa8775p because of current > driver patch? I think you are slightly confused with different similar QCS SKUs here. QCS9100 is sa8775p. QCS8300 is a lighter version of it. > > I don't think it is correct, but let's repeat: if you think otherwise, > this should be explain in commit msg. > > Best regards, > Krzysztof -- With best wishes Dmitry
