Hi,
On Wed, Dec 5, 2018 at 7:35 PM Abhinav Kumar <abhinavk@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> +&dsi0 {
> + status = "okay";
> + qcom,dual-dsi-mode;
> + qcom,master-dsi;
> + qcom,sync-dual-dsi;
> +
> + vdda-supply = <&vdda_mipi_dsi0_1p2>;
> +
> + panel@0 {
> + compatible = "truly,nt35597-2K-display";
> + reg = <0>;
> +
> + vdda-supply = <&vreg_l14a_1p88>;
> + vdispp-supply = <&lab_regulator>;
> + vdispn-supply = <&ibb_regulator>;
Can you please point to the patch posted upstream that provides the
nodes for lab_regulator and ibb_regulator? I searched and I couldn't
find it, but I certainly could have missed it... There was an
INTERNAL patch in some downstream trees providing these but nothing
upstream. This can't land upstream until such a patch is posted and
works...
> +&dsi1_phy {
> + status = "okay";
> + vdds-supply = <&vdda_mipi_dsi1_pll>;
> +};
> +
Right now this causes a merge conflict when I pick it in my tree but
that's because I have the &gcc node for protected-clocks (see
linux-next). Depending on Andy you might need to repost atop that
one.
> +
> + /* PINCTRL - board-specific pinctrl */
> +
> +&tlmm {
> + disp_mode_sel: disp-mode-sel {
I also get a merge conflict here, but that's because I have Evan's
SDHCI patches in my tree which also adds the tlmm node (actually, it
moves it to the right place). If Andy can land the SDHCI device tree
then you could base off of his patches and avoid the merge conflict.
Overall: for the merge conflicts I don't think it's a big deal--Andy
can probably resolve them. ...but you definitely need to explain
where "lab_regulator" and "ibb_regulator" come from and this can't
land until those nodes are provided.
-Doug
