This series adds support for the InnoLux G070ACE-L01 7" 800x480 TFT LCD
panel with WLED backlight.
Signed-off-by: Richard Leitner <[email protected]>
---
Richard Leitner (2):
dt-bindings: display: simple: add support for InnoLux G070ACE-L01
drm/panel: simple: Add InnoLux G070ACE-L01
.../bindings/display/panel/panel-simple.yaml | 2 ++
drivers/gpu/drm/panel/panel-simple.c | 35 ++++++++++++++++++++++
2 files changed, 37 insertions(+)
---
base-commit: c0b67534c95c537f7a506a06b98e5e85d72e2b7d
change-id: 20230201-innolux-g070ace-fda21c89efe2
Best regards,
--
Richard Leitner <[email protected]>
From: Richard Leitner <[email protected]>
Add Innolux G070ACE-L01 7" WVGA (800x480) TFT LCD panel compatible
string.
Acked-by: Krzysztof Kozlowski <[email protected]>
Signed-off-by: Richard Leitner <[email protected]>
---
Documentation/devicetree/bindings/display/panel/panel-simple.yaml | 2 ++
1 file changed, 2 insertions(+)
diff --git a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/display/panel/panel-simple.yaml b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/display/panel/panel-simple.yaml
index 18241f4051d2..fd3e5ad769dc 100644
--- a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/display/panel/panel-simple.yaml
+++ b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/display/panel/panel-simple.yaml
@@ -174,6 +174,8 @@ properties:
- innolux,at043tn24
# Innolux AT070TN92 7.0" WQVGA TFT LCD panel
- innolux,at070tn92
+ # Innolux G070ACE-L01 7" WVGA (800x480) TFT LCD panel
+ - innolux,g070ace-l01
# Innolux G070Y2-L01 7" WVGA (800x480) TFT LCD panel
- innolux,g070y2-l01
# Innolux G070Y2-T02 7" WVGA (800x480) TFT LCD TTL panel
--
2.39.2
From: Richard Leitner <[email protected]>
Add InnoLux G070ACE-L01 7" 800x480 TFT LCD with WLED backlight panel
support. Timing data was extracted from datasheet and vendor provided
EDID file.
Signed-off-by: Richard Leitner <[email protected]>
---
drivers/gpu/drm/panel/panel-simple.c | 35 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
1 file changed, 35 insertions(+)
diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/panel/panel-simple.c b/drivers/gpu/drm/panel/panel-simple.c
index 8a3b685c2fcc..d90f86ad3789 100644
--- a/drivers/gpu/drm/panel/panel-simple.c
+++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/panel/panel-simple.c
@@ -2142,6 +2142,38 @@ static const struct panel_desc innolux_at070tn92 = {
.bus_format = MEDIA_BUS_FMT_RGB888_1X24,
};
+static const struct display_timing innolux_g070ace_l01_timing = {
+ .pixelclock = { 25200000, 35000000, 35700000 },
+ .hactive = { 800, 800, 800 },
+ .hfront_porch = { 30, 32, 87 },
+ .hback_porch = { 30, 32, 87 },
+ .hsync_len = { 1, 1, 1 },
+ .vactive = { 480, 480, 480 },
+ .vfront_porch = { 3, 3, 3 },
+ .vback_porch = { 13, 13, 13 },
+ .vsync_len = { 1, 1, 4 },
+ .flags = DISPLAY_FLAGS_DE_HIGH,
+};
+
+static const struct panel_desc innolux_g070ace_l01 = {
+ .timings = &innolux_g070ace_l01_timing,
+ .num_timings = 1,
+ .bpc = 8,
+ .size = {
+ .width = 152,
+ .height = 91,
+ },
+ .delay = {
+ .prepare = 10,
+ .enable = 50,
+ .disable = 50,
+ .unprepare = 500,
+ },
+ .bus_format = MEDIA_BUS_FMT_RGB888_1X7X4_SPWG,
+ .bus_flags = DRM_BUS_FLAG_DE_HIGH,
+ .connector_type = DRM_MODE_CONNECTOR_LVDS,
+};
+
static const struct display_timing innolux_g070y2_l01_timing = {
.pixelclock = { 28000000, 29500000, 32000000 },
.hactive = { 800, 800, 800 },
@@ -4098,6 +4130,9 @@ static const struct of_device_id platform_of_match[] = {
}, {
.compatible = "innolux,at070tn92",
.data = &innolux_at070tn92,
+ }, {
+ .compatible = "innolux,g070ace-l01",
+ .data = &innolux_g070ace_l01,
}, {
.compatible = "innolux,g070y2-l01",
.data = &innolux_g070y2_l01,
--
2.39.2
On Mon, Mar 13, 2023 at 08:50:15AM +0100, [email protected] wrote:
> This series adds support for the InnoLux G070ACE-L01 7" 800x480 TFT LCD
> panel with WLED backlight.
Friendly reminder for this small series ????
>
> Signed-off-by: Richard Leitner <[email protected]>
> ---
> Richard Leitner (2):
> dt-bindings: display: simple: add support for InnoLux G070ACE-L01
> drm/panel: simple: Add InnoLux G070ACE-L01
>
> .../bindings/display/panel/panel-simple.yaml | 2 ++
> drivers/gpu/drm/panel/panel-simple.c | 35 ++++++++++++++++++++++
> 2 files changed, 37 insertions(+)
> ---
> base-commit: c0b67534c95c537f7a506a06b98e5e85d72e2b7d
> change-id: 20230201-innolux-g070ace-fda21c89efe2
>
> Best regards,
> --
> Richard Leitner <[email protected]>
>
Hi,
On Mon, Mar 13, 2023 at 12:51 AM <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> From: Richard Leitner <[email protected]>
>
> Add InnoLux G070ACE-L01 7" 800x480 TFT LCD with WLED backlight panel
> support. Timing data was extracted from datasheet and vendor provided
> EDID file.
>
> Signed-off-by: Richard Leitner <[email protected]>
> ---
> drivers/gpu/drm/panel/panel-simple.c | 35 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
> 1 file changed, 35 insertions(+)
I think panel-simple currently has no active maintainers. Given that
I've touched all these files in the past and this is trivial, I don't
mind applying. I also did a review and this looks reasonable to me.
Reviewed-by: Douglas Anderson <[email protected]>
Pushed to drm-misc-next:
1993f598998d drm/panel: simple: Add InnoLux G070ACE-L01
Hi,
On Mon, Mar 13, 2023 at 12:51 AM <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> From: Richard Leitner <[email protected]>
>
> Add Innolux G070ACE-L01 7" WVGA (800x480) TFT LCD panel compatible
> string.
>
> Acked-by: Krzysztof Kozlowski <[email protected]>
> Signed-off-by: Richard Leitner <[email protected]>
nit: as I understand it, ordering of tags is usually supposed to be
chronological. You signed off on this patch before Krzysztof acked it,
so the SoB should be above. I'll fix that when applying.
> ---
> Documentation/devicetree/bindings/display/panel/panel-simple.yaml | 2 ++
> 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+)
>
> diff --git a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/display/panel/panel-simple.yaml b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/display/panel/panel-simple.yaml
> index 18241f4051d2..fd3e5ad769dc 100644
> --- a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/display/panel/panel-simple.yaml
> +++ b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/display/panel/panel-simple.yaml
> @@ -174,6 +174,8 @@ properties:
> - innolux,at043tn24
> # Innolux AT070TN92 7.0" WQVGA TFT LCD panel
> - innolux,at070tn92
> + # Innolux G070ACE-L01 7" WVGA (800x480) TFT LCD panel
> + - innolux,g070ace-l01
I think panel-simple currently has no active maintainers. Given that
I've touched all these files in the past, I don't mind applying.
Pushed to drm-misc-next:
4b4b96826ba9 dt-bindings: display: simple: add support for InnoLux G070ACE-L01
On 21/04/2023 18:15, Doug Anderson wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On Mon, Mar 13, 2023 at 12:51 AM <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>> From: Richard Leitner <[email protected]>
>>
>> Add Innolux G070ACE-L01 7" WVGA (800x480) TFT LCD panel compatible
>> string.
>>
>> Acked-by: Krzysztof Kozlowski <[email protected]>
>> Signed-off-by: Richard Leitner <[email protected]>
>
> nit: as I understand it, ordering of tags is usually supposed to be
> chronological. You signed off on this patch before Krzysztof acked it,
> so the SoB should be above. I'll fix that when applying.
Some people agree with this... but b4 disagrees, so I would say the
tools should implement the right process and right decisions. We should
not be correcting the tools' output, unless the tools are not correct -
then fix the tools.
Best regards,
Krzysztof
Hi,
On Fri, Apr 21, 2023 at 9:26 AM Krzysztof Kozlowski
<[email protected]> wrote:
>
> On 21/04/2023 18:15, Doug Anderson wrote:
> > Hi,
> >
> > On Mon, Mar 13, 2023 at 12:51 AM <[email protected]> wrote:
> >>
> >> From: Richard Leitner <[email protected]>
> >>
> >> Add Innolux G070ACE-L01 7" WVGA (800x480) TFT LCD panel compatible
> >> string.
> >>
> >> Acked-by: Krzysztof Kozlowski <[email protected]>
> >> Signed-off-by: Richard Leitner <[email protected]>
> >
> > nit: as I understand it, ordering of tags is usually supposed to be
> > chronological. You signed off on this patch before Krzysztof acked it,
> > so the SoB should be above. I'll fix that when applying.
>
> Some people agree with this... but b4 disagrees, so I would say the
> tools should implement the right process and right decisions. We should
> not be correcting the tools' output, unless the tools are not correct -
> then fix the tools.
Ah, interesting. I checked and as far as I could tell Richard had
manually added the tag when sending v2, so I didn't assume it as a
tool-added tag. I'm happy to let "b4" be the canonical thing that says
what the order should be.
OK, so I just tried this and I'm confused. I ran:
b4 am -P_ [email protected]
...and when I check the patch that b4 spits out my "Reviewed-by" tag
is _after_ the "Signed-off-by" tag, just like I asked for.
Just in case Acked-by was somehow different than Reviewed-by, I went
back to the original version where you added the Acked-by:
b4 am -P_ [email protected]
...and, again, it matches the order that I thought was right. In other
words, the patch file generated says:
> Signed-off-by: Richard Leitner <[email protected]>
> Acked-by: Krzysztof Kozlowski <[email protected]>
My "b4" is from Dec 1 of last year, so maybe something changed? Let's
update! OK, I synced b4 and now I'm at v0.12.2 from Match 10 (MARIO
day!). The behavior is unchanged.
Did I get something wrong in the above?
On 21/04/2023 18:37, Doug Anderson wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On Fri, Apr 21, 2023 at 9:26 AM Krzysztof Kozlowski
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>> On 21/04/2023 18:15, Doug Anderson wrote:
>>> Hi,
>>>
>>> On Mon, Mar 13, 2023 at 12:51 AM <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> From: Richard Leitner <[email protected]>
>>>>
>>>> Add Innolux G070ACE-L01 7" WVGA (800x480) TFT LCD panel compatible
>>>> string.
>>>>
>>>> Acked-by: Krzysztof Kozlowski <[email protected]>
>>>> Signed-off-by: Richard Leitner <[email protected]>
>>>
>>> nit: as I understand it, ordering of tags is usually supposed to be
>>> chronological. You signed off on this patch before Krzysztof acked it,
>>> so the SoB should be above. I'll fix that when applying.
>>
>> Some people agree with this... but b4 disagrees, so I would say the
>> tools should implement the right process and right decisions. We should
>> not be correcting the tools' output, unless the tools are not correct -
>> then fix the tools.
>
> Ah, interesting. I checked and as far as I could tell Richard had
> manually added the tag when sending v2, so I didn't assume it as a
> tool-added tag. I'm happy to let "b4" be the canonical thing that says
> what the order should be.
>
> OK, so I just tried this and I'm confused. I ran:
>
> b4 am -P_ [email protected]
>
> ...and when I check the patch that b4 spits out my "Reviewed-by" tag
> is _after_ the "Signed-off-by" tag, just like I asked for.
>
> Just in case Acked-by was somehow different than Reviewed-by, I went
> back to the original version where you added the Acked-by:
>
> b4 am -P_ [email protected]
>
> ...and, again, it matches the order that I thought was right. In other
> words, the patch file generated says:
>
>> Signed-off-by: Richard Leitner <[email protected]>
>> Acked-by: Krzysztof Kozlowski <[email protected]>
We talk about `b4 trailers`, because the tag is applied by the
submitter, not by the maintainer.
>
> Did I get something wrong in the above?
Your `b4 am` will of course put the tag later, because it is you who
applies the tag.
Best regards,
Krzysztof
On 21/04/2023 18:51, Doug Anderson wrote:
>>> ...and, again, it matches the order that I thought was right. In other
>>> words, the patch file generated says:
>>>
>>>> Signed-off-by: Richard Leitner <[email protected]>
>>>> Acked-by: Krzysztof Kozlowski <[email protected]>
>>
>> We talk about `b4 trailers`, because the tag is applied by the
>> submitter, not by the maintainer.
>>
>>>
>>> Did I get something wrong in the above?
>>
>> Your `b4 am` will of course put the tag later, because it is you who
>> applies the tag.
>
> Ah, got it. So I guess from the perspective of "b4" every time the
> author modifies a patch (like adding new tags to it) then it's a new
> application of Signed-off-by and thus the old Signed-off-by is removed
> from the top and a new one is added below all the tags that have been
> received. Thus if b4 grabs all the tags off the mailing list for
> applying it ends up in a different order than if it grabs all the tags
> off the mailing list for sending a new version.
>
> OK, I can understand that perspective. I'll keep it in mind.
Yeah. I actually agree with your point that submitter's SoB should
always be the last one, but I agree more with using process via
standardized tools. IOW, since I cannot change in this matter b4, I need
to agree with it. :)
Best regards,
Krzysztof
Hi,
On Fri, Apr 21, 2023 at 9:45 AM Krzysztof Kozlowski
<[email protected]> wrote:
>
> On 21/04/2023 18:37, Doug Anderson wrote:
> > Hi,
> >
> > On Fri, Apr 21, 2023 at 9:26 AM Krzysztof Kozlowski
> > <[email protected]> wrote:
> >>
> >> On 21/04/2023 18:15, Doug Anderson wrote:
> >>> Hi,
> >>>
> >>> On Mon, Mar 13, 2023 at 12:51 AM <[email protected]> wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>> From: Richard Leitner <[email protected]>
> >>>>
> >>>> Add Innolux G070ACE-L01 7" WVGA (800x480) TFT LCD panel compatible
> >>>> string.
> >>>>
> >>>> Acked-by: Krzysztof Kozlowski <[email protected]>
> >>>> Signed-off-by: Richard Leitner <[email protected]>
> >>>
> >>> nit: as I understand it, ordering of tags is usually supposed to be
> >>> chronological. You signed off on this patch before Krzysztof acked it,
> >>> so the SoB should be above. I'll fix that when applying.
> >>
> >> Some people agree with this... but b4 disagrees, so I would say the
> >> tools should implement the right process and right decisions. We should
> >> not be correcting the tools' output, unless the tools are not correct -
> >> then fix the tools.
> >
> > Ah, interesting. I checked and as far as I could tell Richard had
> > manually added the tag when sending v2, so I didn't assume it as a
> > tool-added tag. I'm happy to let "b4" be the canonical thing that says
> > what the order should be.
> >
> > OK, so I just tried this and I'm confused. I ran:
> >
> > b4 am -P_ [email protected]
> >
> > ...and when I check the patch that b4 spits out my "Reviewed-by" tag
> > is _after_ the "Signed-off-by" tag, just like I asked for.
> >
> > Just in case Acked-by was somehow different than Reviewed-by, I went
> > back to the original version where you added the Acked-by:
> >
> > b4 am -P_ [email protected]
> >
> > ...and, again, it matches the order that I thought was right. In other
> > words, the patch file generated says:
> >
> >> Signed-off-by: Richard Leitner <[email protected]>
> >> Acked-by: Krzysztof Kozlowski <[email protected]>
>
> We talk about `b4 trailers`, because the tag is applied by the
> submitter, not by the maintainer.
>
> >
> > Did I get something wrong in the above?
>
> Your `b4 am` will of course put the tag later, because it is you who
> applies the tag.
Ah, got it. So I guess from the perspective of "b4" every time the
author modifies a patch (like adding new tags to it) then it's a new
application of Signed-off-by and thus the old Signed-off-by is removed
from the top and a new one is added below all the tags that have been
received. Thus if b4 grabs all the tags off the mailing list for
applying it ends up in a different order than if it grabs all the tags
off the mailing list for sending a new version.
OK, I can understand that perspective. I'll keep it in mind.
-Doug
April 21, 2023 1:01 PM, "Krzysztof Kozlowski" <[email protected]> wrote:
>> Ah, got it. So I guess from the perspective of "b4" every time the
>> author modifies a patch (like adding new tags to it) then it's a new
>> application of Signed-off-by and thus the old Signed-off-by is removed
>> from the top and a new one is added below all the tags that have been
>> received. Thus if b4 grabs all the tags off the mailing list for
>> applying it ends up in a different order than if it grabs all the tags
>> off the mailing list for sending a new version.
>>
>> OK, I can understand that perspective. I'll keep it in mind.
>
> Yeah. I actually agree with your point that submitter's SoB should
> always be the last one, but I agree more with using process via
> standardized tools. IOW, since I cannot change in this matter b4, I need
> to agree with it. :)
FWIW, everyone disagrees on how it should be done (which is a totally normal state of things). B4 uses the "chain of custody" logic when it comes to trailers, described here:
https://lore.kernel.org/tools/[email protected]/
In brief, the logic here is that the "Signed-off-by" trailer indicates where the chain of custody for all previous trailers ends. The following order:
Reviewed-by: Reviewer <>
Signed-off-by: Submitter <>
Signed-off-by: Submaintainer <>
Tells that it was the Submitter who collected and applied the Reviewed-by tag, which is why when someone runs "b4 trailers -u", their Signed-off-by is always moved to the bottom to indicate the proper chain of custody boundary.
The following order says something very different:
Signed-off-by: Submitter <>
Reviewed-by: Reviewer <>
Signed-off-by: Submaintainer <>
This indicates that the "Reviewed-by" trailer was collected by the Submaintainer, because it is below the chain-of-custody boundary of the Submitter.
The main reason is if Reviewer says "hey, I don't remember reviewing this, who put my name in there," the order will point at the person in whose custody section this tag shows up.
Hope this helps.
Best regards,
-K