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: <20230607151127.1542024-1-pavacic.p@gmail.com> <20230607151127.1542024-4-pavacic.p@gmail.com>
 <CACRpkdbrEA54qmfTKSsFRG9ZS4u8hM6P5TXtOjRAiW+TD_v-fQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAO9szn00vRFm+iM1m7KgkW0WRuKyJEgVU4tVx4f5tF6KPnE=2w@mail.gmail.com>
 <CACRpkdaw8M3dSkmiV5QDOt3BBB7Jo6NxT0Og=zvA4REMA_7y9g@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAO9szn29A0qCABG0ACni42UGpsGKLwG7OT1y_ho3DgQ0WLvfmw@mail.gmail.com>
 <CACRpkdYXtQwmZR1u-1fwmyC_8Yq4bMkjDBcUCfuGqSz_UhXWJQ@mail.gmail.com> <CAO9szn0OuKW+-JZMs3TPUHiwLCe6cUPcsUq+og64K2utMyZpqQ@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CAO9szn0OuKW+-JZMs3TPUHiwLCe6cUPcsUq+og64K2utMyZpqQ@mail.gmail.com>
From:   Linus Walleij <linus.walleij@linaro.org>
Date:   Thu, 22 Jun 2023 10:22:42 +0200
Message-ID: <CACRpkdb5stXKb7FNk_FC-PKduCngRX3sZTbzcxN+kRskz78fuQ@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 3/3] drm/panel-fannal-c3004: Add fannal c3004 DSI panel
To:     Paulo Pavacic <pavacic.p@gmail.com>,
        Jagan Teki <jagan@amarulasolutions.com>,
        Marek Vasut <marex@denx.de>,
        Maya Matuszczyk <maccraft123mc@gmail.com>
Cc:     neil.armstrong@linaro.org, sam@ravnborg.org, airlied@gmail.com,
        daniel@ffwll.ch, robh+dt@kernel.org,
        krzysztof.kozlowski+dt@linaro.org, conor+dt@kernel.org,
        devicetree@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
        dri-devel@lists.freedesktop.org
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Precedence: bulk

On Wed, Jun 21, 2023 at 5:09=E2=80=AFPM Paulo Pavacic <pavacic.p@gmail.com>=
 wrote:

> A lot of modifications to st7701 are required. I believe it would
> result in a driver that doesn't look or work the same. e.g compare
> delays between initialization sequences of panel-fannal-c3004 and
> panel-st7701. I think it would be optimal to create st7701s driver and
> have special handling for st7701s panels. If there was a flag for
> whether panel is st7701 or st7701s it would end up looking like a
> mess.

What matters is if the original authors of the old st7701 driver are
around and reviewing and testing patches at all. What we need is
active maintainers. (Added Jagan, Marek & Maya).

I buy the reasoning that the st7701s is perhaps substantially different
from st7701.

If st7701s is very different then I suppose it needs a separate driver,
then all we need to to name the driver properly, i.e.
panel-sitronix-st7701s.c.

Yours,
Linus Walleij