Hi, On Tue, Feb 1, 2022 at 9:02 AM Daniel Vetter <daniel@xxxxxxxx> wrote: > > On Tue, Feb 1, 2022 at 5:42 PM Doug Anderson <dianders@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > 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 > > Generally stuff for tests should be put into debugfs. We print > everything there in various files. > > sysfs is uapi, and so come with the full baggage of you need open > userspace (which for some sysfs stuff might just be a script), and > explicitly not for tests (because that just opens the door to merge > anything binary blobs might want and just slide it all in). So please > retcon at least some plausible deniability here :-) OK, fair enough. It really is just for a test. Let me post a revert then while we discuss more. If someone can add a Reviewed-by to the revert then I'll push that just so we're not in an awkward situation. https://lore.kernel.org/r/20220201092152.1.Ibc65ec6fa05017e9856ba9ef557310268429c3ce@changeid > But if it's really only for a test then maybe dumping this into a > debugfs file (we do have connector directories already) would be much > better. That doable? I did spend a little time looking at how to do this in debugfs and it wasn't at all obvious to me without plumbing in a lot of extra code, but I can spend more time on it if it's a requirement. If you think this is something that should just be easy, I certainly wouldn't say no to a pointer to what I should look at! ;-) -Doug
