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: <20230704-denture-pleat-dec490f218d4@spud>
Date:   Tue, 4 Jul 2023 17:27:11 +0100
From:   Conor Dooley <conor@...nel.org>
To:     Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzysztof.kozlowski@...aro.org>
Cc:     Paweł Anikiel <pan@...ihalf.com>,
        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 Tue, Jul 04, 2023 at 06:23:10PM +0200, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote:
> On 04/07/2023 18:16, Paweł Anikiel wrote:
> >>>>> +     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).
> 
> That's not clear. RFC is interpreted differently by different people.
> Some just ignore it entirely, some still review.
> 
> > Is it really necessary to document the
> > compatible to get any form of feedback on the overall structure of the
> > driver?
> 
> Depends on the person. Anyway no problem for me - I will just ignore the
> patchset.

FWIW, I was asking about it in case you weren't aware Paweł that you
would need to document the properties, since it wasn't mentioned
anywhere.

Download attachment "signature.asc" of type "application/pgp-signature" (229 bytes)