Thank you all for your feedback! As I just learnt about the merge-window patch-freeze period I'll wait until next Monday before submitting v3 including the suggested changes.
Mmmh. Now I'm wondering if I should have added a Fixes tag to [1], that's actually an user-visible issue... [1] https://patchwork.kernel.org/project/linux-mediatek/patch/[email protected]/ Il giorno mar 17 feb 2026 alle ore 10:03 AngeloGioacchino Del Regno <[email protected]> ha scritto: > > Il 17/02/26 08:58, Krzysztof Kozlowski ha scritto: > > On Mon, Feb 16, 2026 at 04:22:14PM +0000, Luca Leonardo Scorcia wrote: > >> Remove the dedicated "mediatek,mt8167-dsi" compatible from the device list > >> and > >> describe it as compatible with mt2701 instead. It is safe to do so because: > > > > You are not doing what you wrote. The dedicated mediatek,mt8167-dsi is > > still there. > > > > And if you want to describe mediatek,mt8167-dsi with OTHER > > compatible (mt2701), it is a NAK. It is wrong and not allowed by writing > > bindings doc. > > Sorry, that was my apparently very-bad advice - and I recognize that, as a > maintainer, I should have given different advices. > > Still, check below the (bad, and not enough) reasons why I said that.... > > > > > You just added fallback, didn't you? > > > > Please wrap commit message according to Linux coding style / submission > > process (neither too early nor over the limit): > > https://elixir.bootlin.com/linux/v6.4-rc1/source/Documentation/process/submitting-patches.rst#L597 > > > > Please run scripts/checkpatch.pl on the patches and fix reported > > warnings. After that, run also 'scripts/checkpatch.pl --strict' on the > > patches and (probably) fix more warnings. Some warnings can be ignored, > > especially from --strict run, but the code here looks like it needs a > > fix. Feel free to get in touch if the warning is not clear. > > > >> > >> - Bootloader doesn't rely on this single compatible; and > > > > Does not matter. You still CANNOT remove a compatible. If bootloader > > starts to rely on this single compatible, you add it back? No. > > > > The issue here is that "mediatek,mt8167-dsi" was never used anywhere, and that > alone makes zero sense as it is - by hardware - identical to mt2701. > > That, leaving alone the fact that nothing anywhere can make use of a node with > just `compatible = "mediatek,mt8167-dsi"`. > > If it is not acceptable to remove something that was never used and should've > never > been there "alone" without fallbacks, it's ok. I'm sure that avoiding to > delete the > one line is not a big deal there. > Also remember that we are talking about an old SoC that will never see a > bootchain > overhaul, nor will it see new bootloaders. > > Though, just a small note - please please please: when we see new > contributors, > especially when they're community ones, can we try and encourage them to do > the > right things, and follow the right processes, without being harsh in any way? > > And P.S.: Yeah I know you haven't been as harsh as you can (rightfully) be, so > thanks for that. > > Luca, I'm sorry again, at this point - it would be great if you could please > send > a v3 without the removal of that line. Just add the fallback and that's it :-) > > >> - There was never any upstreamed devicetree using this single compatible; > >> and > >> - The MT8167 DSI Controller is fully compatible with the one found in > >> MT2701. > >> > >> Fixes: 8867c4b39361 ("dt-bindings: display: mediatek: dsi: add > >> documentation for MT8167 SoC") > >> > > > > There is never a blank line between tags. > > Yeah, agreed. > > Cheers, > Angelo > > > > >> Signed-off-by: Luca Leonardo Scorcia <[email protected]> > >> --- > >> .../devicetree/bindings/display/mediatek/mediatek,dsi.yaml | 5 ++++- > >> 1 file changed, 4 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-) > > > > Best regards, > > Krzysztof > > > -- Luca Leonardo Scorcia [email protected]
