On Thu, May 14, 2026 at 01:24:19PM -0500, Aaron Kling wrote: > On Thu, May 14, 2026 at 1:05 PM Conor Dooley <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > On Thu, May 14, 2026 at 12:24:50PM -0500, Aaron Kling via B4 Relay wrote: > > > > > +static const struct of_device_id icna35xx_of_match[] = { > > > + { .compatible = "ayaneo,pocketds-panel-top", .data = > > > &odin2portal_desc }, > > > + { .compatible = "ayntec,odin2portal-panel", .data = > > > &odin2portal_desc }, > > > + { .compatible = "ayntec,odin3-panel", .data = &thor_top_desc }, > > > + { .compatible = "ayntec,thor-panel-top", .data = &thor_top_desc }, > > > > This looks like you could be using the fallback compatibles instead of > > matching on the panel's. Why aren't you? > > I'm uncertain if the panels are actually the same between these > devices or if the init sequences are just similar enough to share. I > am told that the thor top panel and the odin 3 panel are the same > model. But I don't know about the portal and the pocket ds, just know > that they both fire up and work as expected with the same init > sequence. I'm trying to follow the bindings idea that these might be > different physical panels that only share a ddic and thus driver > handling.
That's a reasonable rationale. Could you include this in your commit
message please?
>
> > > + { /* sentinel */ }
>
> Aaron
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
