On Thu, Jun 25, 2026 at 08:39:15PM +0200, David Heidelberg wrote: > On 25/06/2026 18:57, Dmitry Torokhov wrote: > > Hi Krzysztof, > > > > On Thu, Jun 25, 2026 at 10:23:54AM +0200, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote: > > > On 25/06/2026 06:53, Dmitry Torokhov wrote: > > > > On Wed, Jun 24, 2026 at 04:37:25PM +0200, David Heidelberg wrote: > > > > > On 24/06/2026 06:28, Dmitry Torokhov wrote: > > > > > > Hi David, > > > > > > > > > > > > On Sun, Jun 21, 2026 at 07:11:45PM +0200, David Heidelberg wrote: > > > > > > > On 28/05/2026 00:13, David Heidelberg wrote: > > > > > > > > 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. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Hello Dmitry. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > May I ask what is currently preventing this series from moving > > > > > > > forward? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > The first version was posted in 2023 [1]. I picked it up again in > > > > > > > 2025 [2] > > > > > > > and am now on the 9th iteration (this patchset). At this point, > > > > > > > the series > > > > > > > has been under discussion for well over a year, with relatively > > > > > > > little > > > > > > > feedback and increasingly long gaps between review rounds. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > The current approach is based on the guidance I have received so > > > > > > > far, > > > > > > > including suggestions from the device-tree maintainers. When > > > > > > > concerns were > > > > > > > raised, I tried to address them and rework the series accordingly. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > What I am struggling with is understanding what specific issue > > > > > > > still needs > > > > > > > to be resolved before these patches can be accepted. If there are > > > > > > > remaining > > > > > > > requirements, objections to the approach, or technical concerns > > > > > > > that I have > > > > > > > not addressed, I would appreciate having them stated explicitly > > > > > > > so I can > > > > > > > work on them. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I also split out the straightforward, self-contained changes in > > > > > > > the hope > > > > > > > that at least those could progress independently while I > > > > > > > continued working > > > > > > > on any follow-up requirements. However, even those patches do not > > > > > > > appear to > > > > > > > be moving forward. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Could you please clarify what outcome you would like to see from > > > > > > > this > > > > > > > series, and what concrete changes would be required to get it > > > > > > > accepted? > > > > > > > > > > > > I am still confused about how you want to differentiate between the > > > > > > full > > > > > > RMI4 support vs the OnePlus flavor. The "syna,rmi4-s3706b", as you > > > > > > mentioned, implements RMI4 protocol properly, so we do not need to > > > > > > actually have it documented neither in binding nor in DTS. > > > > > > > > > > --- part 1 --- > > > > > > > > > > This series addresses identification within device-tree. It's normal > > > > > recommended practice. > > > > > > > > > > If we know, the device ships specific, but **compliant** variant, we > > > > > just > > > > > put it as compatible = "more-specific", "less-specific"; in this case > > > > > "syna,rmi4-s3706b", "syna,rmi4-i2c" > > > > > > > > > > This approach is used everywhere. This has nothing to do with > > > > > after-market parts. > > > > > > > > We do this in many cases, sometimes when a part has different timings or > > > > maybe additional functionality compared to the base model. > > > > > > Generic expectation is to have always dedicated front compatible for > > > every device. rmi4-i2c is not really specific enough, more like a > > > family, thus a specific device compatible is essential by the DT rules. > > > > Essential in what way? What will break if such compatible is not there? > > We have lived without it for many years and will continue live happily > > without it for years to come. > > Hi Dmitry, Krzystof, > > Device tree should describe the hardware, rmi4-i2c isn't the exact model of > hardware used, the real hardware is Synaptics S3706B. Device-tree should, > where possible, describe the actual hardware used. > > > > > We keep having this conversation each time there is self-describing > > protocol that does not require knowledge of a specific part number: > > i2c-hid, rmi4, spi-hid coming over soon. > > While the protocol doesn't require this knowledge, where is the issue > provide the model, at least in the places where we know it? > > Does it making things worse to describe hardware in more detail?
OK, I applied the binding change, the dts change should go through some other tree. Thanks. -- Dmitry
