Re: [PATCH 2/2] ARM: dts: da850: add a node for the LCD controller

[Bartosz Golaszewski]

2016-10-17 14:29 GMT+02:00 Tomi Valkeinen <tomi.valkeinen@xxxxxx>:
> On 17/10/16 14:40, Laurent Pinchart wrote:
>> Hello,
>>
>> On Monday 17 Oct 2016 10:33:58 Tomi Valkeinen wrote:
>>> On 17/10/16 10:12, Sekhar Nori wrote:
>>>> On Monday 17 October 2016 11:26 AM, Tomi Valkeinen wrote:
>>>>> On 15/10/16 20:42, Sekhar Nori wrote:
>>>>>>> diff --git a/arch/arm/boot/dts/da850.dtsi
>>>>>>> b/arch/arm/boot/dts/da850.dtsi
>>>>>>> index f79e1b9..32908ae 100644
>>>>>>> --- a/arch/arm/boot/dts/da850.dtsi
>>>>>>> +++ b/arch/arm/boot/dts/da850.dtsi
>>>>>>> @@ -399,6 +420,14 @@
>>>>>>>                                  <&edma0 0 1>;
>>>>>>>                          dma-names = "tx", "rx";
>>>>>>>                  };
>>>>>>> +
>>>>>>> +                display: display@213000 {
>>>>>>> +                        compatible = "ti,am33xx-tilcdc", "ti,da850-tilcdc";
>>>>>>
>>>>>> This should instead be:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> compatible = "ti,da850-tilcdc", "ti,am33xx-tilcdc";
>>>>>>
>>>>>> as the closest match should appear first in the list.
>>>>>
>>>>> Actually I don't think that's correct. The LCDC on da850 is not
>>>>> compatible with the LCDC on AM335x. I think it should be just
>>>>> "ti,da850-tilcdc".
>>>>
>>>> So if "ti,am33xx-tilcdc" is used, the display wont work at all? If thats
>>>> the case, I wonder how the patch passed testing. Bartosz?
>>>
>>> AM3 has "version 2" of LCDC, whereas DA850 is v1. They are quite
>>> similar, but different.
>>>
>>> The driver gets the version number from LCDC's register, and acts based
>>> on that, so afaik the compatible string doesn't really affect the
>>> functionality (as long as it matches).
>>>
>>> But even if it works with the current driver, I don't think
>>> "ti,am33xx-tilcdc" and "ti,da850-tilcdc" are compatible in the HW level.
>>
>> If the hardware provides IP revision information, how about just "ti,lcdc" ?
>
> Maybe, and I agree that's the "correct" way, but looking at the history,
> it's not just once or twice when we've suddenly found out some
> difference or bug or such in an IP revision, or the integration to a
> SoC, that can't be found based on the IP revision.
>
> That's why I feel it's usually safer to have the SoC revision there in
> the compatible string.
>
> That said, we have only a few different old SoCs with LCDC (compared to,
> say, OMAP DSS) so in this case perhaps just "ti,lcdc" would be fine.
>
>  Tomi
>

I Sekhar is ok with this, I'll send a follow-up patch for that.

Thanks,
Bartosz