Re: [PATCH 8/8] dt-bindings: display: Add SSD132x OLED controllers

[Javier Martinez Canillas]

Javier Martinez Canillas <javierm@xxxxxxxxxx> writes:

> Rob Herring <robh@xxxxxxxxxx> writes:
>
> Hello Rob,
>
> Thanks a lot for your feedback.
>
>> On Mon, Oct 09, 2023 at 08:34:22PM +0200, Javier Martinez Canillas wrote:
>>> Add a Device Tree binding schema for the OLED panels based on the Solomon
>>> SSD132x family of controllers.
>>
>> Looks like the same binding as solomon,ssd1307fb.yaml. Why a different 
>> binding? Why does that binding need a slew of custom properties and here 
>> you don't?
>>
>
> It's a sub-set of it. Because only the minimum required properties are
> defined. But also, is a clean slate schema because the old ssd1307fb fbdev
> driver only supports the Solomon SSD130x family, so there is no need to
> follow the existing solomon,ssd1307fb.yaml nor the need for backward compat.
>

I think this answer was a little sparse, let me elaborate a bit. The Solomon
display controllers are quite flexible, so that could be used with different
OLED panels.

And the ssd1307fb binding schema defines a set of properties that are almost
a 1:1 mapping from properties to the configuration registers. This makes the
driver to support most SSD130x controller + panel configurations but at the
expense of making the binding more complicated (a slew of custom propertie
as you pointed out).

Now, as mentioned this is support for greyscale Solomon controllers (the old
fbdev driver only supports monochrome controllers) so we don't care about DT
backward compatibility.

I decided for now to keep the binding at a minimum and be more opinionated in
the driver with having what I think are sane defaults for most of the config
registers.

If there is a need to expose any of this configuration as DT properties, then
we can later added it share some of the existing solomon,ssd1307fb.yaml custom
properties and move them to a common schema.

We can always change the driver in the future anyways, but we can't do the same
with the DT binding schema since that is considered an ABI.

-- 
Best regards,

Javier Martinez Canillas
Core Platforms
Red Hat