The Elan ekth6a12nay touch screen chip same as Elan eKTH6915 controller
has a reset gpio. The difference is that they have different
post_power_delay_ms.

Signed-off-by: Zhaoxiong Lv <lvzhaoxiong@huaqin.corp-partner.google.com>
Acked-by: Conor Dooley <conor.dooley@microchip.com>
---
Changes between V2 and V1:
-  1.  Respin the series on top of v6.10.
v1: https://lore.kernel.org/all/20240704085555.11204-2-lvzhaoxiong@huaqin.corp-partner.google.com/
---
 Documentation/devicetree/bindings/input/elan,ekth6915.yaml | 1 +
 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+)

diff --git a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/input/elan,ekth6915.yaml b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/input/elan,ekth6915.yaml
index a62916d07a08..bb5910460811 100644
--- a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/input/elan,ekth6915.yaml
+++ b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/input/elan,ekth6915.yaml
@@ -22,6 +22,7 @@ properties:
       - items:
           - enum:
               - elan,ekth5015m
+              - elan,ekth6a12nay
           - const: elan,ekth6915
       - const: elan,ekth6915
 
-- 
2.17.1

Hi,

On Mon, Jul 15, 2024 at 12:32 AM Zhaoxiong Lv
<lvzhaoxiong@huaqin.corp-partner.google.com> wrote:
>
> The Elan ekth6a12nay touch screen chip same as Elan eKTH6915 controller
> has a reset gpio. The difference is that they have different
> post_power_delay_ms.
>
> Signed-off-by: Zhaoxiong Lv <lvzhaoxiong@huaqin.corp-partner.google.com>
> Acked-by: Conor Dooley <conor.dooley@microchip.com>

FWIW things have changed enough between V1 and V2 that you probably
should have removed Conor's "Acked-by" tag here and waited for him to
re-add it.

I'd also note that when posting a patch your Signed-off-by should
always be at the bottom of any collected tags. For reference [1].

[1] https://lore.kernel.org/tools/20221031165842.vxr4kp6h7qnkc53l@meerkat.local/

That being said, the new binding seems OK to me.

Reviewed-by: Douglas Anderson <dianders@chromium.org>

Hi,

On Mon, Jul 15, 2024 at 7:22 AM Doug Anderson <dianders@google.com> wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> On Mon, Jul 15, 2024 at 12:32 AM Zhaoxiong Lv
> <lvzhaoxiong@huaqin.corp-partner.google.com> wrote:
> >
> > The Elan ekth6a12nay touch screen chip same as Elan eKTH6915 controller
> > has a reset gpio. The difference is that they have different
> > post_power_delay_ms.
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Zhaoxiong Lv <lvzhaoxiong@huaqin.corp-partner.google.com>
> > Acked-by: Conor Dooley <conor.dooley@microchip.com>
>
> FWIW things have changed enough between V1 and V2 that you probably
> should have removed Conor's "Acked-by" tag here and waited for him to
> re-add it.
>
> I'd also note that when posting a patch your Signed-off-by should
> always be at the bottom of any collected tags. For reference [1].
>
> [1] https://lore.kernel.org/tools/20221031165842.vxr4kp6h7qnkc53l@meerkat.local/
>
> That being said, the new binding seems OK to me.
>
> Reviewed-by: Douglas Anderson <dianders@chromium.org>

...also, all of your patches seem to have the wrong address for
Benjamin Tissoires. Can you fix that? I keep getting:

Message not delivered
Your message couldn't be delivered to benjamin.tissoires@redhat.co
because the remote server is misconfigured. See technical details
below for more information.

...because you have ".co" instead of ".com".

Having the wrong email address for the maintainer is a good way for
your patch not to get picked up. :-P

I would further note that Benjamin seems to have moved from using his
"redhat.com" address to his "kernel.org" address. See commit
139b4c37e9cb ("MAINTAINERS: update Benjamin's email address").

One last note is that get_maintainers should have suggested you email
my @chromium.org address rather than my @google.com address. It's not
a huge deal since they both come to the same place, but some
maintainer tools will refuse to accept the "Reviewed-by" that I post
with my @chromium.org address because my mail program will notice you
sent to my @google.com address and send my reply from there.

Probably you should be using a tool like "b4" or "patman" to help you
send your patches out [1].

[1] https://youtu.be/7B3nKmBoFoQ

-Doug

On Mon, Jul 15, 2024 at 07:22:30AM -0700, Doug Anderson wrote:
> Hi,
> 
> On Mon, Jul 15, 2024 at 12:32 AM Zhaoxiong Lv
> <lvzhaoxiong@huaqin.corp-partner.google.com> wrote:
> >
> > The Elan ekth6a12nay touch screen chip same as Elan eKTH6915 controller
> > has a reset gpio. The difference is that they have different
> > post_power_delay_ms.
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Zhaoxiong Lv <lvzhaoxiong@huaqin.corp-partner.google.com>
> > Acked-by: Conor Dooley <conor.dooley@microchip.com>
> 
> FWIW things have changed enough between V1 and V2 that you probably
> should have removed Conor's "Acked-by" tag here and waited for him to
> re-add it.

Yeah, good spot. I wouldn't have acked this version would asking
questions - in v1 it made sense not to have a fallback when "they have a
different post power delay ms", but now there is a fallback. Is the
fallback actually suitable here, or might it be a naive rebase? Does the
ekth6a12nay work with the ekth6915's reset timing?

Thanks,
Conor.

> 
> I'd also note that when posting a patch your Signed-off-by should
> always be at the bottom of any collected tags. For reference [1].
> 
> [1] https://lore.kernel.org/tools/20221031165842.vxr4kp6h7qnkc53l@meerkat.local/
> 
> That being said, the new binding seems OK to me.
> 
> Reviewed-by: Douglas Anderson <dianders@chromium.org>

Hi,

On Mon, Jul 15, 2024 at 7:31 AM Conor Dooley <conor@kernel.org> wrote:
>
> On Mon, Jul 15, 2024 at 07:22:30AM -0700, Doug Anderson wrote:
> > Hi,
> >
> > On Mon, Jul 15, 2024 at 12:32 AM Zhaoxiong Lv
> > <lvzhaoxiong@huaqin.corp-partner.google.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > The Elan ekth6a12nay touch screen chip same as Elan eKTH6915 controller
> > > has a reset gpio. The difference is that they have different
> > > post_power_delay_ms.
> > >
> > > Signed-off-by: Zhaoxiong Lv <lvzhaoxiong@huaqin.corp-partner.google.com>
> > > Acked-by: Conor Dooley <conor.dooley@microchip.com>
> >
> > FWIW things have changed enough between V1 and V2 that you probably
> > should have removed Conor's "Acked-by" tag here and waited for him to
> > re-add it.
>
> Yeah, good spot. I wouldn't have acked this version would asking
> questions - in v1 it made sense not to have a fallback when "they have a
> different post power delay ms", but now there is a fallback. Is the
> fallback actually suitable here, or might it be a naive rebase? Does the
> ekth6a12nay work with the ekth6915's reset timing?

Oh, good point! Yeah, it should be changed so that "ekth6915" isn't a
fallback. ...so I will rescind my Reviewed-by until that's handled.
:-/

-Doug