[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20200529042345.GA2876@bogon.m.sigxcpu.org>
Date: Fri, 29 May 2020 06:23:45 +0200
From: Guido Günther <agx@...xcpu.org>
To: Rob Herring <robh@...nel.org>
Cc: Laurent Pinchart <Laurent.pinchart@...asonboard.com>,
David Airlie <airlied@...ux.ie>,
Daniel Vetter <daniel@...ll.ch>,
Shawn Guo <shawnguo@...nel.org>,
Pengutronix Kernel Team <kernel@...gutronix.de>,
Fabio Estevam <festevam@...il.com>,
NXP Linux Team <linux-imx@....com>,
Andrzej Hajda <a.hajda@...sung.com>,
Sam Ravnborg <sam@...nborg.org>,
Anson Huang <Anson.Huang@....com>,
Leonard Crestez <leonard.crestez@....com>,
Lucas Stach <l.stach@...gutronix.de>,
Peng Fan <peng.fan@....com>,
Robert Chiras <robert.chiras@....com>,
dri-devel@...ts.freedesktop.org, devicetree@...r.kernel.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH 3/6] dt-bindings: display/bridge/nwl-dsi: Drop mux
handling
Hi Rob,
On Thu, May 28, 2020 at 01:59:14PM -0600, Rob Herring wrote:
> On Fri, May 15, 2020 at 03:12:12PM +0200, Guido Günther wrote:
> > No need to encode the SoC specifics in the bridge driver. For the
> > imx8mq we can use the mux-input-bridge.
>
> You can't just change bindings like this. You'd still have to support
> the "old" way. But IMO, this way is the right way.
My understanding is that binding stability only applies to released
kernels and this binding never was in released kernel yet. Does it still
apply in this case?
Cheers,
-- Guido
>
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Guido Günther <agx@...xcpu.org>
> > ---
> > .../devicetree/bindings/display/bridge/nwl-dsi.yaml | 6 ------
> > 1 file changed, 6 deletions(-)
>
Powered by blists - more mailing lists