Add compatible for EXC81W32 touchscreen controllers.

Signed-off-by: Philipp Zabel <p.zabel@pengutronix.de>
---
v2: new patch, split out of driver patch
---
 Documentation/devicetree/bindings/input/touchscreen/eeti,exc3000.yaml | 1 +
 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+)

diff --git a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/input/touchscreen/eeti,exc3000.yaml b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/input/touchscreen/eeti,exc3000.yaml
index 9dc25d30a0a8..c299838e2680 100644
--- a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/input/touchscreen/eeti,exc3000.yaml
+++ b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/input/touchscreen/eeti,exc3000.yaml
@@ -18,6 +18,7 @@ properties:
       - eeti,exc3000
       - eeti,exc80h60
       - eeti,exc80h84
+      - eeti,exc81w32
   reg:
     const: 0x2a
   interrupts:

-- 
2.39.2

On Fri, Jun 28, 2024 at 10:35:51AM +0200, Philipp Zabel wrote:
> Add compatible for EXC81W32 touchscreen controllers.

Could you please mention in your commit messages what makes a fallback
compatible inappropriate here?

Thanks,
Conor.

> 
> Signed-off-by: Philipp Zabel <p.zabel@pengutronix.de>
> ---
> v2: new patch, split out of driver patch
> ---
>  Documentation/devicetree/bindings/input/touchscreen/eeti,exc3000.yaml | 1 +
>  1 file changed, 1 insertion(+)
> 
> diff --git a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/input/touchscreen/eeti,exc3000.yaml b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/input/touchscreen/eeti,exc3000.yaml
> index 9dc25d30a0a8..c299838e2680 100644
> --- a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/input/touchscreen/eeti,exc3000.yaml
> +++ b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/input/touchscreen/eeti,exc3000.yaml
> @@ -18,6 +18,7 @@ properties:
>        - eeti,exc3000
>        - eeti,exc80h60
>        - eeti,exc80h84
> +      - eeti,exc81w32
>    reg:
>      const: 0x2a
>    interrupts:
> 
> -- 
> 2.39.2
> 

Hi Conor,

On Fr, 2024-06-28 at 17:21 +0100, Conor Dooley wrote:
> On Fri, Jun 28, 2024 at 10:35:51AM +0200, Philipp Zabel wrote:
> > Add compatible for EXC81W32 touchscreen controllers.
> 
> Could you please mention in your commit messages what makes a fallback
> compatible inappropriate here?

thank for pointing this out. Actually, I'm not sure a fallback
compatible is inappropriate at all. There just is none currently, even
though EXC80H60 and EXC80H84 already look compatible to me.

To my understanding, there's EXC80[WH]{32,46,60,84} models, that should
only differ in ball pitch (W or H) and targeted display size (the last
number).
I don't know if there are actual relevant differences between what I
assume are model generations, such as EXC80 to EXC81. At least the
limited currently implemented feature set in the exc3000 driver is
identical.

Given that EXC80H60, EXC80H84, and now EXC81W32 all share the same 16K
resolution and the same message format (possible differences in
capability to measure touch area nonwithstanding), should I prepend
this series with a patch:

@@ -14,10 +14,13 @@
 
 properties:
   compatible:
-    enum:
-      - eeti,exc3000
-      - eeti,exc80h60
-      - eeti,exc80h84
+    oneOf:
+      - const: eeti,exc3000
+      - items:
+          - enum:
+              - eeti,exc80h60
+          - const: eeti,exc80h84
+      - const: eeti,exc80h84
   reg:
     const: 0x2a
   interrupts:

regards
Philipp

On Mon, Jul 01, 2024 at 02:47:50PM +0200, Philipp Zabel wrote:
> Hi Conor,
> 
> On Fr, 2024-06-28 at 17:21 +0100, Conor Dooley wrote:
> > On Fri, Jun 28, 2024 at 10:35:51AM +0200, Philipp Zabel wrote:
> > > Add compatible for EXC81W32 touchscreen controllers.
> > 
> > Could you please mention in your commit messages what makes a fallback
> > compatible inappropriate here?
> 
> thank for pointing this out. Actually, I'm not sure a fallback
> compatible is inappropriate at all. There just is none currently, even
> though EXC80H60 and EXC80H84 already look compatible to me.
> 
> To my understanding, there's EXC80[WH]{32,46,60,84} models, that should
> only differ in ball pitch (W or H) and targeted display size (the last
> number).
> I don't know if there are actual relevant differences between what I
> assume are model generations, such as EXC80 to EXC81. At least the
> limited currently implemented feature set in the exc3000 driver is
> identical.
> 
> Given that EXC80H60, EXC80H84, and now EXC81W32 all share the same 16K
> resolution and the same message format (possible differences in
> capability to measure touch area nonwithstanding), should I prepend
> this series with a patch:

If you're prepared to update the two users to avoid adding more
dtbs_check warnings, sure.

Thanks,
Conor.

> 
> @@ -14,10 +14,13 @@
>  
>  properties:
>    compatible:
> -    enum:
> -      - eeti,exc3000
> -      - eeti,exc80h60
> -      - eeti,exc80h84
> +    oneOf:
> +      - const: eeti,exc3000
> +      - items:
> +          - enum:
> +              - eeti,exc80h60
> +          - const: eeti,exc80h84
> +      - const: eeti,exc80h84
>    reg:
>      const: 0x2a
>    interrupts:
> 
> regards
> Philipp

On Mo, 2024-07-01 at 15:42 +0100, Conor Dooley wrote:
> On Mon, Jul 01, 2024 at 02:47:50PM +0200, Philipp Zabel wrote:
> > Hi Conor,
> > 
> > On Fr, 2024-06-28 at 17:21 +0100, Conor Dooley wrote:
> > > On Fri, Jun 28, 2024 at 10:35:51AM +0200, Philipp Zabel wrote:
> > > > Add compatible for EXC81W32 touchscreen controllers.
> > > 
> > > Could you please mention in your commit messages what makes a fallback
> > > compatible inappropriate here?
> > 
> > thank for pointing this out. Actually, I'm not sure a fallback
> > compatible is inappropriate at all. There just is none currently, even
> > though EXC80H60 and EXC80H84 already look compatible to me.
> > 
> > To my understanding, there's EXC80[WH]{32,46,60,84} models, that should
> > only differ in ball pitch (W or H) and targeted display size (the last
> > number).
> > I don't know if there are actual relevant differences between what I
> > assume are model generations, such as EXC80 to EXC81. At least the
> > limited currently implemented feature set in the exc3000 driver is
> > identical.
> > 
> > Given that EXC80H60, EXC80H84, and now EXC81W32 all share the same 16K
> > resolution and the same message format (possible differences in
> > capability to measure touch area nonwithstanding), should I prepend
> > this series with a patch:
> 
> If you're prepared to update the two users to avoid adding more
> dtbs_check warnings, sure.

I'll follow up with another patch series, thanks.

regards
Philipp