Re: [PATCH v2 1/2] dt-bindings: display/msm: dsi-controller-main: Fix deprecated QCM2290 compatible

[Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzysztof.kozlowski@linaro.org>]

On 18/02/2023 12:23, Konrad Dybcio wrote:
> 
> 
> On 18.02.2023 11:14, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote:
>> On 17/02/2023 22:13, Bryan O'Donoghue wrote:
>>> On 17/02/2023 12:24, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote:
>>>> First, it would be nice to know what was the intention of Bryan's commit?
>>>
>>> Sorry I've been grazing this thread but, not responding.
>>>
>>> - qcom,dsi-ctrl-6g-qcm2290
>>>
>>> is non-compliant with qcom,socid-dsi-ctrl which is our desired naming 
>>> convention, so that's what the deprecation is about i.e. moving this 
>>> compat to "qcom,qcm2290-dsi-ctrl"
>>
>> OK, then there was no intention to deprecate qcom,mdss-dsi-ctrl and it
>> should be left as allowed compatible.
> Not sure if we're on the same page.

We are.

> 
> It wasn't intended to deprecate [1] "qcom,qcm2290-dsi-ctrl", "qcom-mdss-dsi-ctrl";
> (newly-introduced in Bryan's cleanup patchset) but it was intended to deprecate
> [2] "qcom,dsi-ctrl-6g-qcm2290"; which was introduced long before that *and* used in
> the 6115 dt (and it still is in linux-next today, as my cleanup hasn't landed yet).
> 
> [3] "qcom,dsi-ctrl-6g-qcm2290", "qcom,mdss-dsi-ctrl" was never used (and should never
> be, considering there's a proper compatible [1] now) so adding it to bindings
> didn't solve the undocumented-ness issue. Plus the fallback would have never
> worked back then, as the DSI hw revision check would spit out 2.4.1 or 2.4.
> which is SC7180 or SDM845 and then it would never match the base register, as
> they're waay different.

All these were known. I was asking about "qcom,mdss-dsi-ctrl", because
the original intention also affects the way we want to keep it now
(unless there are other reasons).

Best regards,
Krzysztof