On Tue, Aug 27, 2024 at 06:28:21PM GMT, Neil Armstrong wrote: > On 30/06/2024 10:16, Ryan Walklin wrote: > > On Fri, 28 Jun 2024, at 5:59 AM, Maxime Ripard wrote: > > > On Wed, Jun 26, 2024 at 04:34:11PM GMT, Conor Dooley wrote: > > > > On Wed, Jun 26, 2024 at 05:04:19PM +0200, Maxime Ripard wrote: > > > > > On Wed, Jun 26, 2024 at 02:25:54PM GMT, Neil Armstrong wrote: > > > > > > Can it be more specific ? because there's a lot of rg35xx defined > > > > > > in bindings: > > > > > > anbernic,rg351m > > > > > > anbernic,rg351v > > > > > > anbernic,rg353p > > > > > > anbernic,rg353ps > > > > > > anbernic,rg353v > > > > > > anbernic,rg353vs > > > > > > anbernic,rg35xx-2024 > > > > > > anbernic,rg35xx-plus > > > > > > anbernic,rg35xx-h > > > > Just to note only the three rg35xx-* devices use this particular panel. > > > > > > > > > > > > Yeah, if we have an identified model name, we should probably use > > > > > that, > > > > > with a comment that we couldn't figure out what the vendor was and > > > > > thus > > > > > went for anbernic. > > > > > > > > What's wrong with using the wl name that already exists as the model? > > > > Using rg<whatever>-panel is total invention on our part, especially > > > > seeing as the commit message says that multiple models can use it. > > > > > > Yeah, that makes sense, sorry for the noise > > > > > Thanks both for the further feedback, agreed logical to use the > > device vendor and panel serial number, ie "anbernic,wl-355608-a8". > > Will post a V2 with a comment to that effect. > > Well in this case we can keep "wl-355608-a8", because the panel vendor > _is not_ anbernic.
And it's not a generic or ubiquitous device either. We've been over this already, anbernic is the best we have. Maxime
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
