Messages in this thread | | | Date | Thu, 25 Oct 2018 12:25:15 -0700 | From | Abhinav Kumar <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH 5/6] drm/panel: simple: Innolux TV123WAM is actually P120ZDG-BF1 |
| |
On 2018-10-25 11:45, Doug Anderson wrote: > Hi, > > On Thu, Oct 25, 2018 at 11:13 AM Sean Paul <sean@poorly.run> wrote: >> >> On Mon, Oct 22, 2018 at 01:46:38PM -0700, Douglas Anderson wrote: >> > As far as I can tell the panel that was added in commit da50bd4258db >> > ("drm/panel: simple: Add Innolux TV123WAM panel driver support") >> > wasn't actually an Innolux TV123WAM but was actually an Innolux >> > P120ZDG-BF1. >> > >> > As far as I can tell the Innolux TV123WAM isn't a real panel and but >> > it's a mosh between the TI TV123WAM and the Innolux P120ZDG-BF1. >> > Let's unmosh. >> > >> > Here's my evidence: >> > >> > * Searching for TV123WAM on the Internet turns up a TI panel. While >> > it's possible that an Innolux panel has the same model number as the >> > TI Panel, it seems a little doubtful. Looking up the datasheet from >> > the TI Panel shows that it's 1920 x 1280 and 259.2 mm x 172.8 mm. >> > >> > * As far as I know, the patch adding the Innolux Panel was supposed to >> > be for the board that's sitting in front of me as I type this >> > (support for that board is not yet upstream). On the back of that >> > panel I see Innolux P120ZDZ-EZ1 rev B1. >> > >> > * Someone pointed me at a datasheet that's supposed to be for the >> > panel in front of me (sorry, I can't share the datasheet). That >> > datasheet has the string "p120zdg-bf1" >> > >> > * If I search for "P120ZDG-BF1" on the Internet I get hits for panels >> > that are 2160x1440. They don't have datasheets, but the fact that >> > the resolution matches is a good sign. >> > >> > In any case, let's update the name and also the physical size to match >> > the correct panel. >> > >> > Fixes: da50bd4258db ("drm/panel: simple: Add Innolux TV123WAM panel driver support") >> > Signed-off-by: Douglas Anderson <dianders@chromium.org> >> > Cc: Sandeep Panda <spanda@codeaurora.org> >> > --- If Rob is onboard with this binding change, please feel free to add Reviewed-by: Abhinav Kumar <abhinavk@codeaurora.org> >> > >> > drivers/gpu/drm/panel/panel-simple.c | 14 +++++++------- >> > 1 file changed, 7 insertions(+), 7 deletions(-) >> > >> > diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/panel/panel-simple.c b/drivers/gpu/drm/panel/panel-simple.c >> > index 937e97490c30..7ee1abc5d81b 100644 >> > --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/panel/panel-simple.c >> > +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/panel/panel-simple.c >> > @@ -1370,7 +1370,7 @@ static const struct panel_desc innolux_n156bge_l21 = { >> > }, >> > }; >> > >> > -static const struct drm_display_mode innolux_tv123wam_mode = { >> > +static const struct drm_display_mode innolux_p120zdg_bf1_mode = { >> > .clock = 206016, >> > .hdisplay = 2160, >> > .hsync_start = 2160 + 48, >> > @@ -1384,13 +1384,13 @@ static const struct drm_display_mode innolux_tv123wam_mode = { >> > .flags = DRM_MODE_FLAG_PHSYNC | DRM_MODE_FLAG_PVSYNC, >> > }; >> > >> > -static const struct panel_desc innolux_tv123wam = { >> > - .modes = &innolux_tv123wam_mode, >> > +static const struct panel_desc innolux_p120zdg_bf1 = { >> > + .modes = &innolux_p120zdg_bf1_mode, >> > .num_modes = 1, >> > .bpc = 8, >> > .size = { >> > - .width = 259, >> > - .height = 173, >> > + .width = 254, >> > + .height = 169, >> > }, >> > .delay = { >> > .prepare = 200, >> > @@ -2454,8 +2454,8 @@ static const struct of_device_id platform_of_match[] = { >> > .compatible = "innolux,n156bge-l21", >> > .data = &innolux_n156bge_l21, >> > }, { >> > - .compatible = "innolux,tv123wam", >> >> I think we should update the struct, but we might want to keep this >> around. >> Given the tv123wam panel is TI, we're likely not going to have a >> collision on >> innolux,... >> >> That said, I'll defer to robh on this one, I'm not sure if changing >> names is >> cool once the bindings have hit mainline. > > Whoops, I missed Rob on this patch--just had him on the bindings one. > > ...generally I believe Rob seems to be OK with wiping out backward > compatibility for things like this when the previous binding is super > new and there's no evidence that anyone ever used it (like if it was > added for a specific board and that board doesn't have a fully > functional DT anyway). > > In this particular case I'm 99.9999% certain nobody is using the > existing binding. If someone crawls out of the woodwork and says this > patch broke them, it would be trivially easy to add the backward > compatible string later. > > Obviously Rob can feel free to correct me if I'm wrong. > > I purposely put this patch at the end of the series so we can land the > earlier ones and we can sit on this one for a little while if desired. > > -Doug
| |