On 8/28/2025 7:27 PM, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote: > On 28/08/2025 15:49, Vikash Garodia wrote: >>>> >>>> Whether removing will not break any ABI as initial binding enables the IRIS >>>> related code to use video-firmware, now we are removing it. >>>> I believe, removing binding always break ABI ? or is it depend on driver >>>> code not using it ? >>> >>> There is no single user of this, out of tree (I briefly checked) and >>> in-tree, so there is no ABI impact. I am changing the documentation of >>> the ABI, but there is no actual ABI break because impact is 0. >>> >> >> My understanding here is that the interface "video-firmware" is already defined >> in the binding. There could be possible out-of-tree users of it, might not be > > There are no such. > >> possible for us to look into all of those out=of-tree users. > > We both know there are no such so you claiming "maybe not possible" is > quite misleading. Qualcomm does not use it and that's the only possible > case. We can verify it and I did verify this. > there are no such known to me either, maybe i would take this as a sufficiency check to drop/deprecate an interface. >> I support such cleanups, but also need to understand how this is not an ABI > > You are just making up fake obstacles. > > >> break, just that there are no in-tree DTS user means no ABI break ? >> Would appreciate if you could point to any guidelines if my understanding is not >> correct, i am currently referring to [1] > > There are hundreds of discussions describing this and I am not going to > do your homework. > > In none of other qcom media camss/iris/venus patches affecting ABI you > raised that problem. Even remotely, so I cannot understand these > questions here differently than just spreading some sort of FUD over > this patch just to keep that broken video-firmware design for future users. As i said earlier, we can find alternatives to video-firmware, its fine. I am not bringing this discussion to support retaining video-firmware. > >>> I am really sorry but it seems you ask about basics of DT, so please >>> first get into docs and other existing discussions. > > Again, read the docs and existing discussions. I am not going to do your > homework. The doc i pointed earlier does not capture any such case, hence was requesting you to point any doc. > > Best regards, > Krzysztof
