Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 2620:137:e000::1:20 as permitted sender) client-ip=2620:137:e000::1:20;
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <20221104061941.2739938-1-sheng-liang.pan@quanta.corp-partner.google.com>
 <20221104141515.v10.3.I3ac715e729f6f9b5a3e3001b155df4f9d14e6186@changeid> <139c06eb-14b8-10b5-80b7-ba8ec8579846@somainline.org>
In-Reply-To: <139c06eb-14b8-10b5-80b7-ba8ec8579846@somainline.org>
From:   Doug Anderson <dianders@chromium.org>
Date:   Fri, 4 Nov 2022 07:25:55 -0700
Message-ID: <CAD=FV=VwP_s5y0MVNLs+WGD_=nJtJe7h=n+Xu4Ky5RvgdkAw9Q@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v10 3/4] arm64: dts: qcom: sc7280: Add touchscreen and
 touchpad support for evoker
To:     Konrad Dybcio <konrad.dybcio@somainline.org>
Cc:     Sheng-Liang Pan <sheng-liang.pan@quanta.corp-partner.google.com>,
        LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
        Andy Gross <agross@kernel.org>,
        Bjorn Andersson <andersson@kernel.org>,
        Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzysztof.kozlowski+dt@linaro.org>,
        Rob Herring <robh+dt@kernel.org>, devicetree@vger.kernel.org,
        linux-arm-msm@vger.kernel.org
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Precedence: bulk

Hi,

On Fri, Nov 4, 2022 at 2:35 AM Konrad Dybcio
<konrad.dybcio@somainline.org> wrote:
>
>
> On 04/11/2022 07:19, Sheng-Liang Pan wrote:
> > Change touchpad and touchscreen node for evoker
> > Touchpad: SA461D-1011
> > Touchscreen: GT7986U
>
> What's the reasoning? Were they changed post r0? Is r0 support
> effectively dropped?
>
> The changes look ok, but I feel like this needs more of a comment in the
> commit msg.

As I understand it r0's toucscreen/touchpad were not right to start
with. We are moving towards getting things upstream sooner and that
means that hardware hasn't always been fully tested out.

I certainly wouldn't object to a better commit message here, but in
this case there are no real world users (yet) and thus nobody is
really affected by this churn. ...so IMO if the series needs to be
spun for some other reason then the commit message could be updated,
but I wouldn't object to it landing as-is either.

-Doug