[PATCH 1/2] dt-bindings: display: Add SSD133x OLED controllers

[Javier Martinez Canillas]

Conor Dooley <conor at kernel.org> writes:

Hello Connor,

> On Sun, Dec 17, 2023 at 11:00:07PM +0100, Javier Martinez Canillas wrote:
>> Conor Dooley <conor at kernel.org> writes:
>> 
>> Hello Conor,
>> 
>> > On Sun, Dec 17, 2023 at 10:33:24PM +0100, Javier Martinez Canillas wrote:
>> 
>> [...]
>> 
>> >> >> +    then:
>> >> >> +      properties:
>> >> >> +        width:
>> >> >> +          default: 96
>> >> >> +        height:
>> >> >> +          default: 64
>> >> >
>> >> > Do you envisage a rake of devices that are going to end up in this
>> >> > binding? Otherwise, why not unconditionally set the constraints?
>> >> >
>> >> 
>> >> Because these are only for the default width and height, there can be
>> >> panels using the same controller but that have a different resolution.
>> >> 
>> >> For example, there are panels using the SSD1306 controller that have
>> >> 128x32 [0], 64x32 [1] or 128x64 [2] resolutions.
>> >
>> > This, as you know, does not matter here.
>> >
>> 
>> Are you sure? What I tried to say is that the SSD133x are just OLED
>> controllers and manufacturers use those chips to attach a panel that
>> has a certain resolution.
>> 
>> While it makes sense to use all the supported width and height, some
>> manufacturers chose to have a smaller panel instead (I used SSD1306
>> as an example because I knew about these but the same might be true
>> for let's say SSD1331).
>> 
>> Or saying another way, are you sure that every manufacturer selling
>> RGB OLED panels using the SSD1331 chip will use the default resolution
>> and users won't have to set a custom width and height ?
>
> That's not at all what I was saying. I just meant unconditionally set
> the constraints on the property (in this case the default) since you
> only have one compatible. Not unconditionally set the height and width.
>
> Apologies if if that was unclear.
>

Oh, I see that you meant now. Sorry for my confusion!

And yes, I agree with you that doesn't make sense to make it conditional
if there's only a single compatible. I'll drop that if condition on v2.

Thanks a lot for your feedback.

> Thanks,
> Conor.
>
 
-- 
Best regards,

Javier Martinez Canillas
Core Platforms
Red Hat