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: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

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

Date:	Fri, 15 Jul 2016 11:37:40 +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 11:30 AM, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote:
> On 07/15/2016 11:18 AM, Jacek Anaszewski wrote:
>> 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.
>
> Marking a compatible or a property deprecated is commonly used, if
> needed of course. It has nothing to do with device being deprecated.
> This is documentation for bindings and deprecation affects only
> bindings. It is not weird or something strange. We already did this for
> some of Exynos compatibles (later removing them) and there are quite
> many examples in Documentation already.

If this is broadly accepted pattern, then I will not argue against.
Let's proceed as you proposed.

-- 
Best regards,
Jacek Anaszewski