linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] media: Doc add missing documentation for samsung,exynos4212-jpeg

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:	Fri, 15 Jul 2016 11:18:22 +0200
From:	Jacek Anaszewski <j.anaszewski@...sung.com>
To:	Krzysztof Kozlowski <k.kozlowski@...sung.com>
Cc:	Shuah Khan <shuahkh@....samsung.com>, robh+dt@...nel.org,
	pawel.moll@....com, mark.rutland@....com,
	ijc+devicetree@...lion.org.uk, galak@...eaurora.org,
	kgene@...nel.org, mchehab@....samsung.com, andrzej.p@...sung.com,
	hans.verkuil@...co.com, javier@....samsung.com,
	devicetree@...r.kernel.org, linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org,
	linux-samsung-soc@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] media: Doc add missing documentation for
 samsung,exynos4212-jpeg

On 07/15/2016 10:33 AM, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote:
> On 07/15/2016 10:28 AM, Jacek Anaszewski wrote:
>> On 07/15/2016 10:17 AM, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote:
>>> On 07/15/2016 10:14 AM, Jacek Anaszewski wrote:
>>>>> However if these compatibles are exactly equal then
>>>>> only one should be preferred. It makes everything easier. Second can be
>>>>> still documented e.g. as deprecated.
>>>>
>>>> Still, both of them are present in the driver. Shouldn't it be reflected
>>>> in the documentation?
>>>
>>> Right, it is a good practice, so how about:
>>>
>>>     - compatible    : should be one of:
>>>             "samsung,s5pv210-jpeg", "samsung,exynos3250-jpeg",
>>>             "samsung,exynos4210-jpeg", "samsung,exynos5420-jpeg",
>>>             "samsung,exynos5433-jpeg";
>>>
>>>             Deprecated: "samsung,exynos4212-jpeg"
>>>
>>> (or any other formatting)
>>> plus update to DTS changing it to 4210?
>>
>> Why newer 4212 version should be made deprecated?
>
> I don't mind the other way. However it seems logical to me that newer
> chip is compatible with existing one so the existing one (older) is
> used. When adding support for new devices, for most of re-usable drivers
> we use old compatibles. But as I said, it doesn't really matter to me.

Frankly speaking marking a compatible deprecated looks weird to me.
It can be interpreted in the way that the device itself is deprecated
or it is not fully reliable. I'd just accept the patch in the original
form.

-- 
Best regards,
Jacek Anaszewski