[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <6fdcfbcf-0546-6b4f-b50f-cf2382ad746f@redhat.com>
Date: Wed, 26 Jan 2022 09:25:26 +0100
From: Javier Martinez Canillas <javierm@...hat.com>
To: Doug Anderson <dianders@...omium.org>
Cc: dri-devel <dri-devel@...ts.freedesktop.org>,
David Airlie <airlied@...ux.ie>,
Robert Foss <robert.foss@...aro.org>,
LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Thierry Reding <thierry.reding@...il.com>, jjsu@...omium.org,
lschyi@...omium.org, Sam Ravnborg <sam@...nborg.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] drm/panel-edp: Allow querying the detected panel via
sysfs
On 1/26/22 00:25, Doug Anderson wrote:
> On Tue, Jan 25, 2022 at 2:55 PM Javier Martinez Canillas
> <javierm@...hat.com> wrote:
[snip]
>> Should this new sysfs entry be documented in Documentation/ABI/ ?
>
> I'm not sure what the policy is here. I actually don't know that I'm
> too worried about this being an ABI. For the purposes of our tests
> then if something about this file changed (path changed or something
> like that) it wouldn't be a huge deal. Presumably the test itself
> would just "fail" in this case and that would clue us in that the ABI
> changed and we could adapt to whatever new way was needed to discover
> this.
>
> That being said, if the policy is that everything in sysfs is supposed
> to be ABI then I can add documentation for this...
>
I also don't know the policy, hence the question. But in any case, I
think that it could even be done as a follow-up if is needed.
Best regards,
--
Javier Martinez Canillas
Linux Engineering
Red Hat
Powered by blists - more mailing lists