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

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

On 20/02/2023 11:24, Konrad Dybcio wrote:
> 
> 
> On 18.02.2023 15:49, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote:
>> 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).
> Okay, so we want to deprecate:
> 
> "qcom,dsi-ctrl-6g-qcm2290", "qcom,mdss-dsi-ctrl"

No, we don't want to deprecate it. Such compatible was never existing
originally and was only introduced by mistake. We want to correct the
mistake, but we don't want to deprecate such list.

> 
> because it is:
> 
> 1) non-compliant with the qcom,socname-hwblock formula
> 2) replaceable since we rely on the fallback compatible
> 3) "qcom,dsi-ctrl-6g-qcm2290" alone would have been expected to
>    be fixed in the DTSI similar to other SoCs
> 
> Is that correct?

No. So again, I am talking only about qcom,mdss-dsi-ctrl. Since
beginning of this thread:

"Wasn't then intention to deprecate both - qcm2290 and mdss - when used
alone?"

Why do you bring the list to the topic? The list was created by mistake
and Bryan confirmed that it was never his intention.

> 
> Because 2) doesn't hold, as - at the time of the introduction
> of Bryan's patchset - the fallback compatible would not have
> been sufficient from the Linux POV [1]

There was no fallback compatible at that time.

> , though it would have been
> sufficient from the hardware description POV, as the hardware
> on the SoC *is* essentially what qcom,mdss-dsi-ctrl refers to.
> 
> [1] The driver would simply not probe. It *would be* Linux-correct
> after my code-fixing series was applied, but I think I'm just failing
> to comprehend what sort of ABI we're trying to preserve here :/

Best regards,
Krzysztof