Re: [PATCH v5 6/6] drm/panel-edp: Fix AUO 0x405c panel naming and add a variant

[Jani Nikula <jani.nikula@linux.intel.com>]

On Thu, 07 Mar 2024, Doug Anderson <dianders@chromium.org> wrote:
> On Thu, Mar 7, 2024 at 12:28 PM Jani Nikula <jani.nikula@linux.intel.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/CAA8EJpr7LHvqeGXhbFQ8KNn0LGDuv19cw0i04qVUz51TJeSQrA@mail.gmail.com/

-- 
Jani Nikula, Intel