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. > 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. >> 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. Best regards, Krzysztof
