[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CAD=FV=U3YHt=+cr8c39zMxFWMeo4Pr=R3BBPMKanpySPhsYh9w@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 1 Feb 2022 08:41:58 -0800
From: Doug Anderson <dianders@...omium.org>
To: Javier Martinez Canillas <javierm@...hat.com>
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
Hi,
On Wed, Jan 26, 2022 at 12:25 AM Javier Martinez Canillas
<javierm@...hat.com> wrote:
>
> 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.
Sounds good. Since it's been pretty silent and I had your review I
pushed this to drm-misc-next. If there are comments or someone has an
opinion documenting this as a stable ABI then please yell.
363c4c3811db drm/panel-edp: Allow querying the detected panel via sysfs
Powered by blists - more mailing lists