Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel+bounces-96332-linux.lists.archive=gmail.com@vger.kernel.org designates 147.75.80.249 as permitted sender) client-ip=147.75.80.249;
From: Jani Nikula <jani.nikula@linux.intel.com>
To: Doug Anderson <dianders@chromium.org>
Cc: Hsin-Yi Wang <hsinyi@chromium.org>, Dmitry Baryshkov
 <dmitry.baryshkov@linaro.org>, Neil Armstrong <neil.armstrong@linaro.org>,
 Jessica Zhang <quic_jesszhan@quicinc.com>, Sam Ravnborg
 <sam@ravnborg.org>, Maarten Lankhorst <maarten.lankhorst@linux.intel.com>,
 Maxime Ripard <mripard@kernel.org>, Thomas Zimmermann
 <tzimmermann@suse.de>, David Airlie <airlied@gmail.com>, Daniel Vetter
 <daniel@ffwll.ch>, dri-devel@lists.freedesktop.org,
 linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v5 6/6] drm/panel-edp: Fix AUO 0x405c panel naming and
 add a variant
In-Reply-To: <CAD=FV=UKWd743ZWOgkP4Sn_aq9ca97QygdEcS93=tcGa7r7s8g@mail.gmail.com>
Organization: Intel Finland Oy - BIC 0357606-4 - Westendinkatu 7, 02160 Espoo
References: <20240306200353.1436198-1-hsinyi@chromium.org>
 <20240306200353.1436198-7-hsinyi@chromium.org>
 <CAD=FV=VvhKZHVzHQdOO=_p0E5m7ig1LY2s5MZRojRynKHbF1xw@mail.gmail.com>
 <87msraw4q6.fsf@intel.com>
 <CAJMQK-izRv18V1o7_Q23vWFXQsFgaR74xxZ4Vby0FVtNn21TMg@mail.gmail.com>
 <874jdhwzw4.fsf@intel.com>
 <CAD=FV=UKWd743ZWOgkP4Sn_aq9ca97QygdEcS93=tcGa7r7s8g@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 08 Mar 2024 00:35:01 +0200
Message-ID: <87sf11vffu.fsf@intel.com>
Precedence: bulk
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

On Thu, 07 Mar 2024, Doug Anderson <dianders@chromium.org> wrote:
> On Thu, Mar 7, 2024 at 12:28=E2=80=AFPM Jani Nikula <jani.nikula@linux.in=
tel.com> wrote:
>> If there's one thing that's for sure, EDIDs are full of stuff like this,
>> across the board.
>>
>> Ignoring the whitespace at the end seemed reasonable, initially, to me
>> too. But the question is, if we start catering for this, what else
>> should we cater for? Do we keep adding "reasonable" interpretations, or
>> just go by the spec?
>
> Personally, I don't really care a whole lot either way. If I had to
> make a judgement call I think it's a little cleaner the way Hsin-Yi
> has it where we ignore whitespace at the end. Given that Dmitry also
> suggested ignoring whitespace at the end [1] I guess I'd believe that
> he also feels it's a little cleaner that way. However, If the only way
> to get the patch series landed is to put the space at the end of the
> name in panel-edp.c then I'm OK with that.
>
> In terms of what else we should cater to, I guess we'd have to answer
> that question when it comes up, with a bias against adding more
> special case rules. _Hopefully_ it won't be common that we even need
> this code and it will be the exception rather than the rule that
> panels with incompatible timings have the same panel ID anyway...
>
> In any case, hopefully the above explains my opinion on this. If you
> feel strongly that we should remove the code handling whitespace at
> the end then so be it. If you're on the fence then I guess I'd say
> let's keep it...

No, I don't feel strongly, let's go with this. It's not like it's cast
in stone either.

BR,
Jani.


>
>
> [1] https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/CAA8EJpr7LHvqeGXhbFQ8KNn0LGDuv19cw0i04qV=
Uz51TJeSQrA@mail.gmail.com/

--=20
Jani Nikula, Intel