linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] media: dt-bindings: qcom,sm8550-iris: Do not reference legacy venus properties

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: <8db7d699-d3f3-48cb-27c9-fb3639aeec9d@quicinc.com>
Date: Thu, 28 Aug 2025 20:07:13 +0530
From: Vikash Garodia <quic_vgarodia@...cinc.com>
To: Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzysztof.kozlowski@...aro.org>,
        Mukesh Ojha
	<mukesh.ojha@....qualcomm.com>
CC: Dikshita Agarwal <quic_dikshita@...cinc.com>,
        Abhinav Kumar
	<abhinav.kumar@...ux.dev>,
        Bryan O'Donoghue <bryan.odonoghue@...aro.org>,
        Mauro Carvalho Chehab <mchehab@...nel.org>,
        Rob Herring <robh@...nel.org>,
        Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzk+dt@...nel.org>,
        Conor Dooley <conor+dt@...nel.org>, <linux-arm-msm@...r.kernel.org>,
        <linux-media@...r.kernel.org>, <devicetree@...r.kernel.org>,
        <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] media: dt-bindings: qcom,sm8550-iris: Do not reference
 legacy venus properties


On 8/28/2025 7:27 PM, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote:
> On 28/08/2025 15:49, Vikash Garodia wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Whether removing will not break any ABI as initial binding enables the IRIS
>>>> related code to use video-firmware, now we are removing it.
>>>> I believe, removing binding always break ABI ? or is it depend on driver
>>>> code not using it ?
>>>
>>> There is no single user of this, out of tree (I briefly checked) and
>>> in-tree, so there is no ABI impact. I am changing the documentation of
>>> the ABI, but there is no actual ABI break because impact is 0.
>>>
>>
>> My understanding here is that the interface "video-firmware" is already defined
>> in the binding. There could be possible out-of-tree users of it, might not be
> 
> There are no such.
> 
>> possible for us to look into all of those out=of-tree users.
> 
> We both know there are no such so you claiming "maybe not possible" is
> quite misleading. Qualcomm does not use it and that's the only possible
> case. We can verify it and I did verify this.
> 

there are no such known to me either, maybe i would take this as a sufficiency
check to drop/deprecate an interface.

>> I support such cleanups, but also need to understand how this is not an ABI
> 
> You are just making up fake obstacles.
> 
> 
>> break, just that there are no in-tree DTS user means no ABI break ?
>> Would appreciate if you could point to any guidelines if my understanding is not
>> correct, i am currently referring to [1]
> 
> There are hundreds of discussions describing this and I am not going to
> do your homework.
> 
> In none of other qcom media camss/iris/venus patches affecting ABI you
> raised that problem. Even remotely, so I cannot understand these
> questions here differently than just spreading some sort of FUD over
> this patch just to keep that broken video-firmware design for future users.

As i said earlier, we can find alternatives to video-firmware, its fine. I am
not bringing this discussion to support retaining video-firmware.

> 
>>> I am really sorry but it seems you ask about basics of DT, so please
>>> first get into docs and other existing discussions.
> 
> Again, read the docs and existing discussions. I am not going to do your
> homework.

The doc i pointed earlier does not capture any such case, hence was requesting
you to point any doc.

> 
> Best regards,
> Krzysztof