[PATCH] media: Doc add missing documentation for samsung,exynos4212-jpeg

Krzysztof Kozlowski
2016-07-15T09:30:33Z

On 07/15/2016 11:18 AM, Jacek Anaszewski wrote:
> 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.

Marking a compatible or a property deprecated is commonly used, if
needed of course. It has nothing to do with device being deprecated.
This is documentation for bindings and deprecation affects only
bindings. It is not weird or something strange. We already did this for
some of Exynos compatibles (later removing them) and there are quite
many examples in Documentation already.

Best regards,
Krzysztof

> I'd just accept the patch in the original
> form.