On 07/15/2016 10:33 AM, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote:
On 07/15/2016 10:28 AM, Jacek Anaszewski wrote:
On 07/15/2016 10:17 AM, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote:
On 07/15/2016 10:14 AM, Jacek Anaszewski wrote:
However if these compatibles are exactly equal then
only one should be preferred. It makes everything easier. Second can be
still documented e.g. as deprecated.
Still, both of them are present in the driver. Shouldn't it be reflected
in the documentation?
Right, it is a good practice, so how about:
- compatible : should be one of:
"samsung,s5pv210-jpeg", "samsung,exynos3250-jpeg",
"samsung,exynos4210-jpeg", "samsung,exynos5420-jpeg",
"samsung,exynos5433-jpeg";
Deprecated: "samsung,exynos4212-jpeg"
(or any other formatting)
plus update to DTS changing it to 4210?
Why newer 4212 version should be made deprecated?
I don't mind the other way. However it seems logical to me that newer
chip is compatible with existing one so the existing one (older) is
used. When adding support for new devices, for most of re-usable drivers
we use old compatibles. But as I said, it doesn't really matter to me.
Frankly speaking marking a compatible deprecated looks weird to me.
It can be interpreted in the way that the device itself is deprecated
or it is not fully reliable. I'd just accept the patch in the original
form.
--
Best regards,
Jacek Anaszewski
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-samsung-soc" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
