Hi,
On 2024/5/2 16:32, Andy Shevchenko wrote:
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.
Why this is not true? Are you means that the panel-ilitek-ili9341 driver has
ACPI support?
I'm asking because I don't see struct acpi_device_id related stuff in that
source file,
am I miss something?
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.
--
Best regards,
Sui
