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]
Message-id: <57889FD5.9070302@samsung.com>
Date:	Fri, 15 Jul 2016 10:33:25 +0200
From:	Krzysztof Kozlowski <k.kozlowski@...sung.com>
To:	Jacek Anaszewski <j.anaszewski@...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 10:28 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.

BR,
Krzysztof

Powered by blists - more mailing lists

Powered by Openwall GNU/*/Linux Powered by OpenVZ