ср, 30 вер. 2026 р. о 13:43 Thierry Reding <[email protected]> пише: > > On Wed, Sep 30, 2026 at 01:34:19PM +0300, Svyatoslav Ryhel wrote: > > ср, 30 вер. 2026 р. о 13:23 Thierry Reding <[email protected]> пише: > > > > > > On Wed, Sep 30, 2026 at 12:08:41PM +0300, Svyatoslav Ryhel wrote: > > > > ср, 30 вер. 2026 р. о 12:02 Thierry Reding <[email protected]> > > > > пише: > > > > > On Wed, Sep 30, 2026 at 10:05:35AM +0300, Svyatoslav Ryhel wrote: > > > [...] > > > > > > +static const struct of_device_id panel_dbi_of_match[] = { > > > > > > + { .compatible = "hit,tx10d07vm0baa", .data = (void > > > > > > *)PANEL_DBI_TX10D07VM0BAA }, > > > > > > + { .compatible = "lg,lh400wv3-sd04", .data = (void > > > > > > *)PANEL_DBI_LH400WV3 }, > > > > > > > > > > Why the detour through that PANEL_DB_* enum? You could just pass the > > > > > panel funcs pointers directly via .data here. > > > > > > > > > > > > > Passing API/OPS via .data is discouraged. > > > > > > No it's not. We do it all the time. > > > > > > > I have had some controversial experience with MFD, with passing cell > > composition. If DRM subsystem allows this, I am more then happy to > > pass panel ops directly. > > > > > > > Also, looking at the enable/disable sequences these are in fact two > > > > > different drivers, with the only commonality being that they happen to > > > > > be used in the same device. Rolling them both into one driver seems a > > > > > bit odd. > > > > > > > > I did this to simplify maintainance. Both panels are used in the LG > > > > Optimus 2X. My assumption is that LG switched one to another at some > > > > point, hence they share same timings, controls and supplies, but > > > > differ in en/disable sequence. Additionally, these are the the only > > > > DBI Type B-only panels in the kernel, from what I can see. > > > > > > That's just one more reason to put them into more of a generic driver, > > > which would allow people to find it and extend/improve it as needed. > > > > > > > This driver cannot be "generic". Both panels don't fall into any > > category of being "generic". They are grouped solely cause they share > > same timings, controls and supplies (only these 2 panels, other will > > definitely differ) and are used in the same device. I have no problems > > in splitting them into 2 distinct drivers. > > The driver can still be mostly generic. And I suspect that the panels > might have different names for the supplies and controls as well, they > just happen to match in schematics or sources that you used as reference > because they are for the same device. > > My point is, you can keep a lot of boilerplate in a generic DBI driver > and then parameterize the things that aren't the same across them. That > gives you the best of both worlds. > > The reason why I objected is that you have a very specific name for the > driver file and the second panel doesn't match that at all, so it's > confusing. >
Noted. I will split them to remove confusion. I assume that schema can remain common. IMHO creating a generic DBI Type B panel driver does not wort it, especially since these panels are more like non-simple DSI panels and always require a dedicated en/disable sequence. > Thierry
