Hi, On Wed, Jan 26, 2022 at 12:25 AM Javier Martinez Canillas <javierm@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > On 1/26/22 00:25, Doug Anderson wrote: > > On Tue, Jan 25, 2022 at 2:55 PM Javier Martinez Canillas > > <javierm@xxxxxxxxxx> 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
