Hi Maxime,
On Wed, Feb 02, 2022 at 10:48:45AM +0100, Maxime Ripard wrote:
On Thu, Jan 27, 2022 at 03:22:15PM +0100, Maxime Ripard wrote:
On Tue, Jan 11, 2022 at 03:05:10PM +0200, Laurent Pinchart wrote:
On Tue, Jan 11, 2022 at 12:06:35PM +0100, Maxime Ripard wrote:
Following the previous patch, let's introduce a generic panel-lvds binding that documents the panels that don't have any particular constraint documented.
Reviewed-by: Rob Herring robh@kernel.org Signed-off-by: Maxime Ripard maxime@cerno.tech
Changes from v2:
- Added a MAINTAINERS entry
Changes from v1:
- Added missing compatible
- Fixed lint
.../bindings/display/panel/panel-lvds.yaml | 57 +++++++++++++++++++ MAINTAINERS | 1 + 2 files changed, 58 insertions(+) create mode 100644 Documentation/devicetree/bindings/display/panel/panel-lvds.yaml
diff --git a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/display/panel/panel-lvds.yaml b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/display/panel/panel-lvds.yaml new file mode 100644 index 000000000000..fcc50db6a812 --- /dev/null +++ b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/display/panel/panel-lvds.yaml @@ -0,0 +1,57 @@ +# SPDX-License-Identifier: (GPL-2.0-only OR BSD-2-Clause) +%YAML 1.2 +--- +$id: http://devicetree.org/schemas/display/panel/panel-lvds.yaml# +$schema: http://devicetree.org/meta-schemas/core.yaml#
+title: Generic LVDS Display Panel Device Tree Bindings
+maintainers:
- Lad Prabhakar prabhakar.mahadev-lad.rj@bp.renesas.com
- Thierry Reding thierry.reding@gmail.com
+allOf:
- $ref: panel-common.yaml#
- $ref: /schemas/display/lvds.yaml/#
+select:
- properties:
- compatible:
contains:const: panel-lvds- not:
- properties:
compatible:contains:enum:- advantech,idk-1110wr- advantech,idk-2121wr- innolux,ee101ia-01d- mitsubishi,aa104xd12- mitsubishi,aa121td01- sgd,gktw70sdae4seI still don't like this :-( Couldn't we instead do
select: properties: compatible: contains: enum: - auo,b101ew05 - tbs,a711-panel
?
That works too, I'll send another version.
Actually, no, it doesn't work.
If we do this, if we were to have a panel that has panel-lvds but none of the other compatible (because of a typo, or downright invalid binding) we won't validate it and report any error.
I'll merge this version (together with the v4 version of patch 1)
I'm sorry but I *really* *really* dislike this. Having to list all other compatible values in this file is a sign that something is wrong in the validation infrastructure. People will forget to update it when adding new bindings, and will get confused by the result. If I were a maintainer for DT bindings I'd nack this.
If a DT has panel-lvds and no other compatible string, or invalid ones, won't the validation report that the compatible isn't understood ? I think that would be enough.