On 21/10/2026 14:00, Nabige Aala wrote: > > On 10/21/2026 5:23 PM, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote: >> On 21/10/2026 13:16, Nabige Aala wrote: >>> On 10/13/2026 2:18 PM, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote: >>>> On Tue, Oct 13, 2026 at 09:44:15AM +0200, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote: >>>>> On Mon, Oct 12, 2026 at 07:02:12PM +0530, Nabige Aala wrote: >>>>>> From: Mahadevan P <[email protected]> >>>>>> >>>>>> Nord uses MDSS 12.1 with two independent DP controller instances, >>>>>> each exposing two DP cores at new IO offsets. None of the existing >>>>>> compatibles match this layout, so add qcom,nord-dp. >>>>>> >>>>>> Signed-off-by: Mahadevan P <[email protected]> >>>>>> Signed-off-by: Nabige Aala <[email protected]> >>>>> Do I understand correctly: >>>>> Device is fully compatible with qcom,sa8775p-dp, but a simple to fix >>>>> driver limitation is preventing compatibility? >>>>> >>>>> If so, let's fix the driver - just add more addresses to the >>>>> msm_dp_desc_sa8775p array? >>>> Or it does not matter, because top-level MDSS anyway cannot use >>>> compatibility? >>> For MDSS0, the DP register offsets are same to those used on SA8775P. >>> However, the MDSS1 DP register offsets differ from SA8775P, and Nord >>> also utilizes a different MDSS instance. Because of these differences, >>> we introduced a separate compatible string for Nord. >>> >>> Are you suggesting that Nord should reuse the "msm_dp_desc_sa8775p"? >>> This would also pollute the sa8775p's desc table. >> What are the differences? Only registers, so no pollution. You just need >> them to match IDs. > > Yes, only registers are changed. > > Okay, I'll update the SA8775P descriptor table to also support Nord and > drop the "qcom,nord-dp" compatible string change.
Well, I am not insisting - see my last question - this just has to be addressed. Best regards, Krzysztof
