Re: [PATCH v2 2/2] arm64: dts: qcom: sdm845-oneplus: Update compatible to include model

[Krzysztof Kozlowski]

On 25/06/2026 18:57, Dmitry Torokhov wrote:
> Hi Krzysztof,
> 
> On Thu, Jun 25, 2026 at 10:23:54AM +0200, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote:
>> On 25/06/2026 06:53, Dmitry Torokhov wrote:
>>> On Wed, Jun 24, 2026 at 04:37:25PM +0200, David Heidelberg wrote:
>>>> On 24/06/2026 06:28, Dmitry Torokhov wrote:
>>>>> 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 <david@xxxxxxx>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> 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 <konrad.dybcio@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>>>>>>>>> Signed-off-by: David Heidelberg <david@xxxxxxx>
>>>>>>>>> ---
>>>>>>>>>    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.
>>>>
>>>> --- part 1 ---
>>>>
>>>> This series addresses identification within device-tree. It's normal
>>>> recommended practice.
>>>>
>>>> If we know, the device ships specific, but **compliant** variant, we just
>>>> put it as compatible = "more-specific", "less-specific"; in this case
>>>> "syna,rmi4-s3706b", "syna,rmi4-i2c"
>>>>
>>>> This approach is used everywhere. This has nothing to do with after-market parts.
>>>
>>> We do this in many cases, sometimes when a part has different timings or
>>> maybe additional functionality compared to the base model.
>>
>> Generic expectation is to have always dedicated front compatible for
>> every device. rmi4-i2c is not really specific enough, more like a
>> family, thus a specific device compatible is essential by the DT rules.
> 
> Essential in what way? What will break if such compatible is not there?

Essential by the rules we defined for DT and documented in writing-bindings.

> We have lived without it for many years and will continue live happily
> without it for years to come.


Does not matter if compatible is used or not. The rules are dictating that.

Best regards,
Krzysztof