On 2/1/22 15:02, Andy Shevchenko wrote:
On Tue, Feb 01, 2022 at 12:45:53PM +0100, Javier Martinez Canillas wrote:
On 2/1/22 10:44, Andy Shevchenko wrote:
On Tue, Feb 01, 2022 at 01:14:22AM +0100, Javier Martinez Canillas wrote:
...
The problem with no backward compatibility means that removal of old driver makes users unhappy since DT is kinda ABI and we do not break it.
I think that's the crux of the issue. Do we want people to update their kernel but using their existing Device Tree and be able to switch to the DRM driver ?
My take is that we should and that's why I kept the backward compatibility.
Maybe we could do that in the meantime and at some point introduce new DT bindings (with a different compatible string) that would use the latest and greatest conventions in DT ? That seems to be a good compromise.
I have over-read in this discussion that current binding is not fully correct from hw perspective. If it's indeed the case (and I believe it's), then probably we should come with brand new driver with ssd130x name and incompatible bindingas (*).
Otherwise in this driver we continue to be incorrect in them.
See the comment from Geert. I believe we should use the existing binding.
*) But even though I think it would be good if you take the old one under your maintainership.
Sure, now that I got familiar with the ssd130x devices, I'll be happy to help with the ssd1307fb driver maintainership.
Best regards,