On 30/06/2024 10:16, Ryan Walklin wrote:
On Fri, 28 Jun 2024, at 5:59 AM, Maxime Ripard wrote:
On Wed, Jun 26, 2024 at 04:34:11PM GMT, Conor Dooley wrote:
On Wed, Jun 26, 2024 at 05:04:19PM +0200, Maxime Ripard wrote:
On Wed, Jun 26, 2024 at 02:25:54PM GMT, Neil Armstrong wrote:
Can it be more specific ? because there's a lot of rg35xx defined in bindings:
anbernic,rg351m
anbernic,rg351v
anbernic,rg353p
anbernic,rg353ps
anbernic,rg353v
anbernic,rg353vs
anbernic,rg35xx-2024
anbernic,rg35xx-plus
anbernic,rg35xx-h
Just to note only the three rg35xx-* devices use this particular panel.
Yeah, if we have an identified model name, we should probably use that,
with a comment that we couldn't figure out what the vendor was and thus
went for anbernic.
What's wrong with using the wl name that already exists as the model?
Using rg<whatever>-panel is total invention on our part, especially
seeing as the commit message says that multiple models can use it.
Yeah, that makes sense, sorry for the noise
Thanks both for the further feedback, agreed logical to use the device vendor and panel
serial number, ie "anbernic,wl-355608-a8". Will post a V2 with a comment to
that effect.
Well in this case we can keep "wl-355608-a8", because the panel vendor _is not_
anbernic.
Neil
Regards,
Ryan
