[PATCH v2 3/6] dt-bindings: display: mediatek: Correct compatibility for mt8167-dsi

[Luca Leonardo Scorcia]

Thank you all for your feedback! As I just learnt about the
merge-window patch-freeze
period I'll wait until next Monday before submitting v3 including the
suggested changes.

Mmmh. Now I'm wondering if I should have added a Fixes tag to [1],
that's actually an
user-visible issue...

[1] https://patchwork.kernel.org/project/linux-mediatek/patch/20260209090516.14369-1-l.scorcia@gmail.com/

Il giorno mar 17 feb 2026 alle ore 10:03 AngeloGioacchino Del Regno
<angelogioacchino.delregno at collabora.com> ha scritto:
>
> Il 17/02/26 08:58, Krzysztof Kozlowski ha scritto:
> > On Mon, Feb 16, 2026 at 04:22:14PM +0000, Luca Leonardo Scorcia wrote:
> >> Remove the dedicated "mediatek,mt8167-dsi" compatible from the device list and
> >> describe it as compatible with mt2701 instead. It is safe to do so because:
> >
> > You are not doing what you wrote. The dedicated mediatek,mt8167-dsi is
> > still there.
>  >
> > And if you want to describe mediatek,mt8167-dsi with OTHER
> > compatible (mt2701), it is a NAK. It is wrong and not allowed by writing
> > bindings doc.
>
> Sorry, that was my apparently very-bad advice - and I recognize that, as a
> maintainer, I should have given different advices.
>
> Still, check below the (bad, and not enough) reasons why I said that....
>
> >
> > You just added fallback, didn't you?
> >
> > Please wrap commit message according to Linux coding style / submission
> > process (neither too early nor over the limit):
> > https://elixir.bootlin.com/linux/v6.4-rc1/source/Documentation/process/submitting-patches.rst#L597
> >
> > Please run scripts/checkpatch.pl on the patches and fix reported
> > warnings. After that, run also 'scripts/checkpatch.pl --strict' on the
> > patches and (probably) fix more warnings. Some warnings can be ignored,
> > especially from --strict run, but the code here looks like it needs a
> > fix. Feel free to get in touch if the warning is not clear.
> >
> >>
> >> - Bootloader doesn't rely on this single compatible; and
> >
> > Does not matter. You still CANNOT remove a compatible. If bootloader
> > starts to rely on this single compatible, you add it back? No.
> >
>
> The issue here is that "mediatek,mt8167-dsi" was never used anywhere, and that
> alone makes zero sense as it is - by hardware - identical to mt2701.
>
> That, leaving alone the fact that nothing anywhere can make use of a node with
> just `compatible = "mediatek,mt8167-dsi"`.
>
> If it is not acceptable to remove something that was never used and should've never
> been there "alone" without fallbacks, it's ok. I'm sure that avoiding to delete the
> one line is not a big deal there.
> Also remember that we are talking about an old SoC that will never see a bootchain
> overhaul, nor will it see new bootloaders.
>
> Though, just a small note - please please please: when we see new contributors,
> especially when they're community ones, can we try and encourage them to do the
> right things, and follow the right processes, without being harsh in any way?
>
> And P.S.: Yeah I know you haven't been as harsh as you can (rightfully) be, so
> thanks for that.
>
> Luca, I'm sorry again, at this point - it would be great if you could please send
> a v3 without the removal of that line. Just add the fallback and that's it :-)
>
> >> - There was never any upstreamed devicetree using this single compatible; and
> >> - The MT8167 DSI Controller is fully compatible with the one found in MT2701.
> >>
> >> Fixes: 8867c4b39361 ("dt-bindings: display: mediatek: dsi: add documentation for MT8167 SoC")
> >>
> >
> > There is never a blank line between tags.
>
> Yeah, agreed.
>
> Cheers,
> Angelo
>
> >
> >> Signed-off-by: Luca Leonardo Scorcia <l.scorcia at gmail.com>
> >> ---
> >>   .../devicetree/bindings/display/mediatek/mediatek,dsi.yaml   | 5 ++++-
> >>   1 file changed, 4 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
> >
> > Best regards,
> > Krzysztof
> >
>


-- 
Luca Leonardo Scorcia
l.scorcia at gmail.com