On Wed, Sep 30, 2026 at 03:32:19PM +0200, Neil Armstrong wrote: > On 9/29/26 10:39, Maxime Ripard wrote: > > Hi, > > > > > <snip> > > > > > panel-mipi-dsi-spi is a generic panel that will load a firmware, and > > quite similar to this one. google,android-pipe and qcom,fastrpc don't > > attach to anything and will just open a tunnel to userspace, which is > > somewhat equivalent but more dramatic than what this driver is doing. > > simple-card or its variations will just instantiate a kernel driver from > > the DT and is used pretty much everywhere. > > > > I reused the binding from panel-mipi-dsi-spi for this. It was reviewed > > by rob, and acked by a panel maintainer, and 4 years ago, so we're way > > past the "oh but we didn't know what we were doing back then" argument. > > > > So, let's phrase this differently: what's different about the > > description than panel-mipi-dsi-spi, or any other binding already in > > tree? > > The panel-mipi-dsi-spi still describes a class of H/W control interface, > not a pure software driver implementation type. > > "panel-mipi-dsi-bpf" or "panel-mipi-dsi-rust" or "panel-mipi-dsi-cplusplus" > would be the same problem.
Rob explicitly said the bpf part wasn't the problem. Also, I don't care for the compatible itself, so what would be an acceptable compatible for you? > > If it's the BPF part, BPF is not Linux-only, and there's hardware with > > direct BPF support these days, so it can be considered OS-agnostic and > > not an implementation detail. > > If somehow panels used a standardized MIPI firmware we could define this > in DT, but here we're basically inventing our own type of firmware from > thin air. That's not what panel-mipi-dsi-spi is. Maxime
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
