[PATCH v3 1/2] dt-bindings: display: panel: Add WL-355608-A8 panel

[Conor Dooley]

On Thu, Jun 06, 2024 at 01:23:03PM +0200, Maxime Ripard wrote:
> On Thu, Jun 06, 2024 at 11:37:31AM GMT, Neil Armstrong wrote:
> > On 06/06/2024 11:32, Maxime Ripard wrote:
> > > On Fri, May 31, 2024 at 09:12:14AM GMT, Ryan Walklin wrote:
> > > > The WL-355608-A8 is a 3.5" 640x480 at 60Hz RGB LCD display used in a
> > > > number of handheld gaming devices made by Anbernic. By consensus a
> > > > vendor prefix is not provided as the panel OEM is unknown.
> > > 
> > > Where has this consensus been found?
> > > 
> > > I had a look at the previous discussions, and I can't find any consensus
> > > being reached there. And for that kind of thing, having the ack or
> > > review of any of the DT maintainers would have been great.
> > 
> > There was a consensus with Conor, this is why he acked v2, see
> > https://lore.kernel.org/all/20240525-velvet-citable-a45dd06847a7@spud/
> 
> It's probably a matter of semantics here, but if it's with only one
> person, it's not a consensus but an agreement.
> 
> > ```
> > I think if we genuinely do not know what the vendor is then we just
> > don't have a prefix.
> > ```
> 
> And even then, I don't interpret Conor's statement as a formal agreement
> but rather an acknowledgment of the issue.

I mean, I specifically left an r-b below that line in v2:
https://lore.kernel.org/all/20240530-satchel-playgroup-e8aa6937b8b9@spud/

I'm not a displays guy, so my sources were limited to what I could find
from search engines, but I spent some time looking for an actual vendor
of the panel and could not. All I found was various listings on places
like AliExpress that did not mention an manufacturer. I'd rather not
invent a vendor because we could not find the actual vendor of the
panel & it seemed rather unreasonable to block support for the device
on the basis of not being able to figure out the vendor. If you, as
someone knowledgeable on displays, can figure the vendor out, then
yeah we should definitely add it.

> > I agree with Conor so I applied the patchset after Connor reviewed it and the comment was fixed in v3:
> > https://lore.kernel.org/all/20240530-satchel-playgroup-e8aa6937b8b9@spud/
> 
> Yeah, I know. Still, it's a major deviation to what we've always been
> doing, getting the DT maintainers voice on that would have been a good
> idea.

Is it a consensus of DT maintainers you're looking for?

Cheers,
Conor.
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 228 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <https://lists.freedesktop.org/archives/dri-devel/attachments/20240606/38bc0b19/attachment.sig>