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