Hi David, On Sun, Jun 21, 2026 at 07:11:45PM +0200, David Heidelberg wrote: > On 28/05/2026 00:13, David Heidelberg wrote: > > On 27/05/2026 23:56, Dmitry Torokhov wrote: > > > Hi David, > > > > > > On Sat, May 23, 2026 at 11:45:35AM +0200, David Heidelberg via B4 Relay > > > wrote: > > > > From: David Heidelberg <[email protected]> > > > > > > > > We know the driver is reporting s3706b, introduce the compatible so we > > > > can more easily introduce quirks for weird touchscreen replacements in > > > > followup series. > > > > > > > > Reviewed-by: Konrad Dybcio <[email protected]> > > > > Signed-off-by: David Heidelberg <[email protected]> > > > > --- > > > > arch/arm64/boot/dts/qcom/sdm845-oneplus-common.dtsi | 2 +- > > > > 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-) > > > > > > > > diff --git a/arch/arm64/boot/dts/qcom/sdm845-oneplus-common.dtsi > > > > b/arch/ arm64/boot/dts/qcom/sdm845-oneplus-common.dtsi > > > > index 6b7378cf4d493..148164d456a5a 100644 > > > > --- a/arch/arm64/boot/dts/qcom/sdm845-oneplus-common.dtsi > > > > +++ b/arch/arm64/boot/dts/qcom/sdm845-oneplus-common.dtsi > > > > @@ -475,17 +475,17 @@ bq27441_fg: bq27441-battery@55 { > > > > }; > > > > }; > > > > &i2c12 { > > > > status = "okay"; > > > > clock-frequency = <400000>; > > > > synaptics-rmi4-i2c@20 { > > > > - compatible = "syna,rmi4-i2c"; > > > > + compatible = "syna,rmi4-s3706b", "syna,rmi4-i2c"; > > > > > > So I believe we established that this device (s3706b) does not in fact > > > implement rmi4 protocol properly. Why do we have "syna,rmi4-i2c" as a > > > fallback? Shouldn't it be just "syna,rmi4-s3706b"? > > > > The vendor supplies s3706b which does implement the RMI4 properly. > > > > The 3rd party replacement impersonating original parts may not implement > > it properly, but I don't address this issue in this initial submission. > > > > With this compatible we know which original part is used by the vendor > > and installed in the phones, so later we can deduct specific sequences > > for the replacement aftermarket parts to keep phone touchscreen working > > same as they do on Android without affecting other devices. > > Hello Dmitry. > > May I ask what is currently preventing this series from moving forward? > > The first version was posted in 2023 [1]. I picked it up again in 2025 [2] > and am now on the 9th iteration (this patchset). At this point, the series > has been under discussion for well over a year, with relatively little > feedback and increasingly long gaps between review rounds. > > The current approach is based on the guidance I have received so far, > including suggestions from the device-tree maintainers. When concerns were > raised, I tried to address them and rework the series accordingly. > > What I am struggling with is understanding what specific issue still needs > to be resolved before these patches can be accepted. If there are remaining > requirements, objections to the approach, or technical concerns that I have > not addressed, I would appreciate having them stated explicitly so I can > work on them. > > I also split out the straightforward, self-contained changes in the hope > that at least those could progress independently while I continued working > on any follow-up requirements. However, even those patches do not appear to > be moving forward. > > Could you please clarify what outcome you would like to see from this > series, and what concrete changes would be required to get it accepted?
I am still confused about how you want to differentiate between the full RMI4 support vs the OnePlus flavor. The "syna,rmi4-s3706b", as you mentioned, implements RMI4 protocol properly, so we do not need to actually have it documented neither in binding nor in DTS. The issue you have with after-market parts that are not compliant and we need to figure out how to deal with them. Inside the driver I essentially need a"incomplete protocol" flag that we can use to implement additional checks or skip known to be not implemented functions/queries. In DT we could introduce something like "oneplus,rmi4-i2c" that is decidedly not compatible with "syna,rmi4-i2c" and neither one should be a fallback for the other. This of course needs buy-in from DT maintainers. Does this make sense? Thanks. -- Dmitry
