Re: [PATCH 1/4] dt-bindings: display: panel: Add Novatek NT37705

["Luca Weiss" <luca.weiss@fairphone.com>]

Hi Krzysztof,

On Tue May 5, 2026 at 9:25 AM CEST, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote:
> On 05/05/2026 08:40, Luca Weiss wrote:
>>>>>> +  compatible:
>>>>>> +    contains:
>>>>>> +      const: boe,bj631jhm-t71-d900
>>>>>
>>>>> Compatible doesn't match the filename, nor does the commit message match
>>>>> what you've got here. Sounds like you're missing a fallback to
>>>>> $filename.
>>>>
>>>> The last times I was upstreaming panel drivers (Feb 2024 and June 2025),
>>>> this was the requested way of doing things.
>>>
>>> So this was requested that time and is requested now. What is here
>>> uncertain?
>>>
>>>>
>>>> Compatible being the company and model number making the actual panel
>>>> assembly (driver IC + touchscreen + glass etc), while the rest being
>>>> named after the driver IC manufacturer & number.
>>>
>>> So exactly what was asked for...
>> 
>> I don't quite understand what is asked for now, that's my issue.
>> 
>> 1. Change the filename to boe,bj631jhm-t71-d900.yaml and leave the rest
>>    as-is.
>> 
>> 2. Add a fallback compatible for novatek,nt37705. IIRC last time it was
>>    argued that a "generic" nt37705 driver will never be correct for a
>>    specific panel since it's missing a bunch of panel-specific init. So
>>    that's why there should not be a fallback to nt37705.
>
> To my limited knowledge the (2) with fallback describing the specific IC
> is preferred, because that compatible although not currently usable is
> still specific and describes actual IC used. I imagine that such
> fallback still could be useful to some SW implementation to determine
> the IC and act based on that.
>
> If you have sources of other preference, please share, but I just gave
> same review to Neil for his ayaneo,wt0600-2k panels.

I found the discussion from 2024 for the Fairphone 4 panel:

https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/f9164049-6529-42c1-a35a-e91132c823b9@linaro.org/

(quoting)

'''
  Not sure if "himax,hx83112a" is needed here, the "djn,9a-3r063-1102b"
  is enough to know the IC is hx83112a.

  I don't think you'll ever find a "djn,9a-3r063-1102b" with another
  controller IC ?

  And "himax,hx83112a" alone as fallback is not enough to describe the
  panel hardware, so I think it should be dropped.
'''

With Konrad replying "+1" to that.

Regards
Luca