Re: [PATCH v3 1/2] dt-bindings: display: panel: Add WL-355608-A8 panel

[Neil Armstrong <neil.armstrong@linaro.org>]

On 18/06/2024 13:13, Conor Dooley wrote:
> On Tue, Jun 18, 2024 at 11:04:09AM +0200, Maxime Ripard wrote:
>> Hi Conor,
>>
>> Sorry, I missed the news of you becoming a DT maintainer, so most of my
>> previous points are obviously bogus. And congrats :)
> 
> I've been doing it for over a year, so news travels to some corners slowly
> I guess. I'm not just being a pest in dozens of subsystems for fun!
> 
>> On Thu, Jun 06, 2024 at 12:51:33PM GMT, Conor Dooley wrote:
>>> On Thu, Jun 06, 2024 at 01:23:03PM +0200, Maxime Ripard wrote:
>>>> On Thu, Jun 06, 2024 at 11:37:31AM GMT, Neil Armstrong wrote:
>>>>> On 06/06/2024 11:32, Maxime Ripard wrote:
>>>>>> On Fri, May 31, 2024 at 09:12:14AM GMT, Ryan Walklin wrote:
>>>>>>> The WL-355608-A8 is a 3.5" 640x480@60Hz RGB LCD display used in a
>>>>>>> number of handheld gaming devices made by Anbernic. By consensus a
>>>>>>> vendor prefix is not provided as the panel OEM is unknown.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Where has this consensus been found?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I had a look at the previous discussions, and I can't find any consensus
>>>>>> being reached there. And for that kind of thing, having the ack or
>>>>>> review of any of the DT maintainers would have been great.
>>>>>
>>>>> There was a consensus with Conor, this is why he acked v2, see
>>>>> https://lore.kernel.org/all/20240525-velvet-citable-a45dd06847a7@spud/
>>>>
>>>> It's probably a matter of semantics here, but if it's with only one
>>>> person, it's not a consensus but an agreement.
>>>>
>>>>> ```
>>>>> I think if we genuinely do not know what the vendor is then we just
>>>>> don't have a prefix.
>>>>> ```
>>>>
>>>> And even then, I don't interpret Conor's statement as a formal agreement
>>>> but rather an acknowledgment of the issue.
>>>
>>> I mean, I specifically left an r-b below that line in v2:
>>> https://lore.kernel.org/all/20240530-satchel-playgroup-e8aa6937b8b9@spud/
>>>
>>> I'm not a displays guy, so my sources were limited to what I could find
>>> from search engines, but I spent some time looking for an actual vendor
>>> of the panel and could not. All I found was various listings on places
>>> like AliExpress that did not mention an manufacturer. I'd rather not
>>> invent a vendor because we could not find the actual vendor of the
>>> panel & it seemed rather unreasonable to block support for the device
>>> on the basis of not being able to figure out the vendor. If you, as
>>> someone knowledgeable on displays, can figure the vendor out, then
>>> yeah we should definitely add it.
>>
>> It's still a bit surprising to me. We've merged[1][2][3][4], and are still
>> merging[5], panels from this particular vendor that have no clearly
>> identified OEMs. Just like any other panel, really. We almost *never*
>> have the actual OEM, we just go with whatever is the easiest to identify
>> it.
> 
> It wasn't (isn't?) clear to me that Abernic is even the vendor of the
> panel, just that it works for their devices. If there's an established
> policy here of making up vendors for these panels, then sure, override
> me and use them as the prefix.
> 
>> Plus, if there ever is another WL-355608-A8 part from a completely
>> unrelated vendor, then you'll have a naming clash with no clear
>> indication about which is which.

Not sure we can say there's an established policy ongoing here, we try to
use the marking we find on the panel when possible and when not possible
we use the vendor + name of the device in last ressort.

Neil

>>
>> 1: https://lore.kernel.org/all/20230426143213.4178586-1-macroalpha82@gmail.com/
>> 2: https://lore.kernel.org/all/20231003163355.143704-1-macroalpha82@gmail.com/
>> 3: https://lore.kernel.org/all/20231117202536.1387815-1-macroalpha82@gmail.com/
>> 4: https://lore.kernel.org/all/20231208154847.130615-1-macroalpha82@gmail.com/
>> 5: https://lore.kernel.org/dri-devel/20240618081515.1215552-1-kikuchan98@gmail.com/
> 
>