On 07/11/2022 12:36, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote:
On 07/11/2022 11:46, Konrad Dybcio wrote:
On 06/11/2022 05:30, Bjorn Andersson wrote:
On Fri, Nov 04, 2022 at 04:13:56PM +0300, Dmitry Baryshkov wrote:
Enable MDSS/DPU/DSI0 on SM8450-HDK device. Note, there is no panel
configuration (yet).
Signed-off-by: Dmitry Baryshkov <dmitry.barysh...@linaro.org>
---
arch/arm64/boot/dts/qcom/sm8450-hdk.dts | 18 ++++++++++++++++++
1 file changed, 18 insertions(+)
diff --git a/arch/arm64/boot/dts/qcom/sm8450-hdk.dts
b/arch/arm64/boot/dts/qcom/sm8450-hdk.dts
index 38ccd44620d0..e1a4cf1ee51d 100644
--- a/arch/arm64/boot/dts/qcom/sm8450-hdk.dts
+++ b/arch/arm64/boot/dts/qcom/sm8450-hdk.dts
@@ -442,3 +442,21 @@ &usb_1_qmpphy {
vdda-phy-supply = <&vreg_l6b_1p2>;
vdda-pll-supply = <&vreg_l1b_0p91>;
};
+
+&mdss {
+ status = "okay";
+};
+
+&mdss_mdp {
+ status = "okay";
+};
+
+&dsi0 {
Please prefix the labels with "mdss_" so that you can keep them sorted
alphabetically.
Why such a change all of a sudden? Only downstream (and sc7280 upstream)
has mdss_ prefixes for dsi.
For keeping the nodes together - this makes review of code and patches
easier.
Ok, I can see the reasoning.
Plain 'dsiN' is more generic.
And why the label should be generic? Label should be useful and
descriptive, although not too much, so mdss_dsi still fits in reasonable
choice.
I was under the impression that it should be. But you're right.
Konrad
Best regards,
Krzysztof
