Date:   Tue, 4 Jan 2022 16:26:04 -0600
From:   Rob Herring <robh@kernel.org>
To:     Dmitry Baryshkov <dmitry.baryshkov@linaro.org>
Cc:     David Heidelberg <david@ixit.cz>, Rob Clark <robdclark@gmail.com>,
        Sean Paul <sean@poorly.run>,
        Abhinav Kumar <quic_abhinavk@quicinc.com>,
        David Airlie <airlied@linux.ie>,
        Daniel Vetter <daniel@ffwll.ch>,
        Krishna Manikandan <mkrishn@codeaurora.org>,
        ~okias/devicetree@lists.sr.ht, linux-arm-msm@vger.kernel.org,
        dri-devel@lists.freedesktop.org, freedreno@lists.freedesktop.org,
        devicetree@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] Discussion: dt-bindings: display: msm:
 dsi-controller-main: fix the binding
Message-ID: <YdTJfMXYXjavr8cZ@robh.at.kernel.org>
References: <20211225205352.76827-1-david@ixit.cz>
 <CAA8EJpoVuNDS2uD2g8W_40XVO2jS=6GtRQFxAnyPpd_QuHim8g@mail.gmail.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <CAA8EJpoVuNDS2uD2g8W_40XVO2jS=6GtRQFxAnyPpd_QuHim8g@mail.gmail.com>
Precedence: bulk

On Sun, Dec 26, 2021 at 02:34:08AM +0300, Dmitry Baryshkov wrote:
> Hi,
> 
> On Sat, 25 Dec 2021 at 23:54, David Heidelberg <david@ixit.cz> wrote:
> >
> > This binding is not much validating the old DSI v2.
> >
> > Currently we don't differentiate old v2 from new versions,
> > so we need to figure out how to validate them.
> >
> > I propose specific compatible depending on mdss version, but I would be
> > glad, if someone with deeper knowledge proposed the names.
> >
> > I'm willing to implement it then and back from autodetection.
> 
> I'd suggest to use hardware-specific compatible for apq8064 (and maybe
> other v2 hosts if somebody adds support). For example
> "qcom,apq8064-dsi-ctrl" or "qcom,dsi-ctrl-apq8064" (no strong
> preference here).

The former.

> For 6G hosts it will probably make sense to use IP versions instead
> ("qcom-dsi-ctrl-6g-v2.4.1").

Humm, we went down the path of version numbers for QCom blocks, but the 
result was not much reuse of same version on more than 2-3 parts if 
that. So stick with SoCs for naming unless there's a strong case that 
version numbers to SoC parts is 1 to many.

Rob