Hi,

On Tue, 22 Feb 2022 at 04:26, Konrad Dybcio konrad.dybcio@somainline.org wrote:

There is *almost no reason* to keep separate compatibles for different SoCs utilizing the DPU1 driver, as it checks the HW version at runtime.

Introduce a common compatible, while not removing the old ones to keep old DT compatibility.

I don't quite like this idea. Specifying more or less exact compatibility string gives us more flexibility. Few recent usecases to mention: - qcom,mdp5 compatibility. If we had soc-specific compatibilities, we would be able to switch the drivers w/o changing the dts. With a single compatibility we would have to change the dts if we were to change one of the boards form mdp5 to dpu1. - qcom,mdss-dsi-ctrl vs qcm2290. We have to add special compat string to account for the different io addresses. If we were using soc-specific compats, it would be one from many, not one vs many usage.

Signed-off-by: Konrad Dybcio konrad.dybcio@somainline.org

Bar some very very very unlikely edge cases (such as need for some random quick being applied to one SoC from a family that shares DPU hw rev, but not the others, there is little to no reason to keep adding compatibles that don't mean anything.

If this change is cool, then the question about what to do with dt-bindings arises...

drivers/gpu/drm/msm/disp/dpu1/dpu_kms.c | 3 +++ 1 file changed, 3 insertions(+)

diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/msm/disp/dpu1/dpu_kms.c b/drivers/gpu/drm/msm/disp/dpu1/dpu_kms.c index 47fe11a84a77..335018542a3a 100644 --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/msm/disp/dpu1/dpu_kms.c +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/msm/disp/dpu1/dpu_kms.c @@ -1348,6 +1348,9 @@ static const struct dev_pm_ops dpu_pm_ops = { };

const struct of_device_id dpu_dt_match[] = {

•   { .compatible = "qcom,dpu1" },
  

•   /* Legacy compatibles for old DTs */
    { .compatible = "qcom,sdm845-dpu", },
    { .compatible = "qcom,sc7180-dpu", },
    { .compatible = "qcom,sc7280-dpu", },
  

-- 2.35.1