On Wed, May 01, 2024 at 12:27:14AM +0800, Sui Jingfeng wrote: > On 2024/4/30 22:13, Andy Shevchenko wrote: > > On Fri, Apr 26, 2024 at 05:13:43AM +0800, Sui Jingfeng wrote:
... > > the former might be subdivided to "is it swnode backed or real fwnode one?" > > > Yeah, > On non-DT cases, it can be subdivided to swnode backed case and ACPI fwnode > backed case. > > - For swnode backed case: the device_get_match_data() don't has a > implemented backend. > - For ACPI fwnode backed case: the device_get_match_data() has a implemented > backend. > > But the driver has *neither* software node support True. > nor ACPI support, Not true. So, slow down and take your time to get into the code and understand how it works. > so that the rotation property can not get and ili9341_dpi_probe() will fails. > So in total, this is not a 100% correct use of device property APIs. > > But I'm fine that if you want to leave(ignore) those less frequent use cases > temporarily, > there may have programmers want to post patches, to complete the missing in > the future. > > So, there do have some gains on non-DT cases. > > - As you make it be able to compiled on X86 with the drm-misc-defconfig. > - You cleanup the code up (at least patch 2 in this series is no obvious > problem). > - You allow people to modprobe it, and maybe half right and half undefined. > > But you do helps moving something forward, so congratulations for the wake up. -- With Best Regards, Andy Shevchenko
