On 27/05/2026 23:56, Dmitry Torokhov wrote:
Hi David,
On Sat, May 23, 2026 at 11:45:35AM +0200, David Heidelberg via B4 Relay wrote:
From: David Heidelberg <[email protected]>
We know the driver is reporting s3706b, introduce the compatible so we
can more easily introduce quirks for weird touchscreen replacements in
followup series.
Reviewed-by: Konrad Dybcio <[email protected]>
Signed-off-by: David Heidelberg <[email protected]>
---
arch/arm64/boot/dts/qcom/sdm845-oneplus-common.dtsi | 2 +-
1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
diff --git a/arch/arm64/boot/dts/qcom/sdm845-oneplus-common.dtsi
b/arch/arm64/boot/dts/qcom/sdm845-oneplus-common.dtsi
index 6b7378cf4d493..148164d456a5a 100644
--- a/arch/arm64/boot/dts/qcom/sdm845-oneplus-common.dtsi
+++ b/arch/arm64/boot/dts/qcom/sdm845-oneplus-common.dtsi
@@ -475,17 +475,17 @@ bq27441_fg: bq27441-battery@55 {
};
};
&i2c12 {
status = "okay";
clock-frequency = <400000>;
synaptics-rmi4-i2c@20 {
- compatible = "syna,rmi4-i2c";
+ compatible = "syna,rmi4-s3706b", "syna,rmi4-i2c";
So I believe we established that this device (s3706b) does not in fact
implement rmi4 protocol properly. Why do we have "syna,rmi4-i2c" as a
fallback? Shouldn't it be just "syna,rmi4-s3706b"?
The vendor supplies s3706b which does implement the RMI4 properly.
The 3rd party replacement impersonating original parts may not implement it
properly, but I don't address this issue in this initial submission.
With this compatible we know which original part is used by the vendor and
installed in the phones, so later we can deduct specific sequences for the
replacement aftermarket parts to keep phone touchscreen working same as they do
on Android without affecting other devices.
David
Thanks.
--
David Heidelberg
