On Tue, Jul 04, 2023 at 06:23:10PM +0200, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote:
> On 04/07/2023 18:16, Paweł Anikiel wrote:
> >>>>> + soc {
> >>>>> + video@c0060500 {
> >>>>> + 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.
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
