Re: [PATCH v10 5/5] arm64: dts: qcom: talos-evk: Add support for QCS615 talos evk board

[Konrad Dybcio <konrad.dybcio@oss.qualcomm.com>]

On 1/8/26 2:02 PM, tessolveupstream@gmail.com wrote:
> 
> 
> On 08-01-2026 14:06, Konrad Dybcio wrote:
>>>>>> + */
>>>>>> +/dts-v1/;
>>>>>> +/plugin/;
>>>>>> +
>>>>>> +#include <dt-bindings/gpio/gpio.h>
>>>>>> +
>>>>>> +&{/} {
>>>>>> +	backlight: backlight {
>>>>>> +		compatible = "gpio-backlight";
>>>>>> +		gpios = <&tlmm 59 GPIO_ACTIVE_HIGH>,
>>>>>> +			<&tlmm 115 GPIO_ACTIVE_HIGH>;
>>>>>> +		default-on;
>>>>>> +	};
>>>>>> +
>>>>>> +	hdmi_connector: hdmi-out {
>>>>>> +		status = "disabled";
>>>>>> +	};
>>>>> This should be a &label_reference
>>>>>
>>>> Okay, will add it in the next patch.
>>> I noticed that in several existing .dtso files, the root node is
>>> commonly referenced as &{/}. In your comment, you suggested using &label_reference. Could you please clarify which specific label or 
>>> node you would like me to update here.
>> &{/} must be used for root nodes in a .dtso (for it to compile). I meant
>> using a &label_reference for hdmi_connector
> 
> Thank you for clarifying. I’ve updated the patch to move 
> hdmi_connector out of the root node and reference it using 
> &hdmi_connector instead of defining it under &{/} like below:
> 
> git diff arch/arm64/boot/dts/qcom/talos-evk-lvds-auo,g133han01.
> diff --git a/arch/arm64/boot/dts/qcom/talos-evk-lvds-auo,g133han01.dtso b/arch/arm64/boot/dts/qcom/talos-evk-lvds-auo,
> index 5393d1dc7fea..bd1cbfc866b7 100644
> --- a/arch/arm64/boot/dts/qcom/talos-evk-lvds-auo,g133han01.dtso
> +++ b/arch/arm64/boot/dts/qcom/talos-evk-lvds-auo,g133han01.dtso
> @@ -15,10 +15,6 @@ backlight: backlight {
>                 default-on;
>         };
> 
> -       hdmi_connector: hdmi-out {
> -               status = "disabled";
> -       };
> -
>         panel-lvds {
>                 compatible = "auo,g133han01";
> 
> @@ -49,6 +45,10 @@ lvds_panel_out_b: endpoint {
>         };
>  };
> 
> +&hdmi_connector {
> +       status = "disabled";
> +};
> +
>  &i2c1 {
>         clock-frequency = <400000>;
> 
> Could you please confirm if this change aligns with your 
> expectation.

Yes, exactly :)

Thank you!

Konrad