linux-kernel - Re: [RFC PATCH 3/3] ARM: dts: Add Chameleon v3 video node

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: <CAF9_jYSwDdyE6mj8+1bA23MWmFHdm16jTSYaRQiF1kzpUtkMNQ@mail.gmail.com>
Date:   Tue, 4 Jul 2023 18:16:56 +0200
From:   Paweł Anikiel <pan@...ihalf.com>
To:     Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzysztof.kozlowski@...aro.org>
Cc:     Conor Dooley <conor@...nel.org>, devicetree@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-media@...r.kernel.org,
        dinguyen@...nel.org, robh+dt@...nel.org,
        krzysztof.kozlowski+dt@...aro.org, conor+dt@...nel.org,
        mchehab@...nel.org, upstream@...ihalf.com, amstan@...omium.org,
        ribalda@...omium.org
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH 3/3] ARM: dts: Add Chameleon v3 video node

On Mon, Jul 3, 2023 at 2:33 PM Krzysztof Kozlowski
<krzysztof.kozlowski@...aro.org> wrote:
>
> On 03/07/2023 13:44, Paweł Anikiel wrote:
> >>> diff --git a/arch/arm/boot/dts/intel/socfpga/socfpga_arria10_chameleonv3.dts b/arch/arm/boot/dts/intel/socfpga/socfpga_arria10_chameleonv3.dts
> >>> index 422d00cd4c74..5e66363d4ab5 100644
> >>> --- a/arch/arm/boot/dts/intel/socfpga/socfpga_arria10_chameleonv3.dts
> >>> +++ b/arch/arm/boot/dts/intel/socfpga/socfpga_arria10_chameleonv3.dts
> >>> @@ -10,6 +10,60 @@ / {
> >>>       compatible = "google,chameleon-v3", "enclustra,mercury-aa1",
> >>>                    "altr,socfpga-arria10", "altr,socfpga";
> >>>
> >>> +     soc {
> >>> +             video@...60500 {
> >>> +                     compatible = "google,chv3-video";
> >>
> >> This compatible does not seem to be documented & I did not see a comment
> >> about the lack of a binding in the cover letter. What am I missing?
> >
> > Yes, the compatible is not documented for now (I'll do that in a later
> > patchset), sorry for not mentioning that in the cover letter.
>
> You cannot add undocumented compatible. This cannot be fixed in "a later
> patchset".

I meant later revision, I'm certainly not expecting this one to land
(I sent is as an RFC). Is it really necessary to document the
compatible to get any form of feedback on the overall structure of the
driver?