Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1753203AbcD1I0o (ORCPT ); Thu, 28 Apr 2016 04:26:44 -0400 Received: from www381.your-server.de ([78.46.137.84]:48582 "EHLO www381.your-server.de" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751534AbcD1IZs (ORCPT ); Thu, 28 Apr 2016 04:25:48 -0400 Subject: Re: [PATCH] iio: tmp006: Set correct iio name To: Crestez Dan Leonard , Daniel Baluta , Yong Li References: <1461296584-11918-1-git-send-email-sdliyong@gmail.com> <43150fbd-37ac-2d51-dd87-f41670417b96@kernel.org> <571E854A.90404@gmail.com> <7621197a-95ed-239e-8baa-83014bc27a26@kernel.org> <571F49B0.4060407@metafoo.de> <571F588D.3010800@metafoo.de> <5720EFAA.3040407@intel.com> Cc: Jonathan Cameron , Hartmut Knaack , Peter Meerwald-Stadler , =?UTF-8?Q?Krzysztof_Koz=c5=82owski?= , Matt Ranostaj , "linux-iio@vger.kernel.org" , Linux Kernel Mailing List From: Lars-Peter Clausen Message-ID: <5721C904.3010505@metafoo.de> Date: Thu, 28 Apr 2016 10:25:40 +0200 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:38.0) Gecko/20100101 Icedove/38.7.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <5720EFAA.3040407@intel.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Authenticated-Sender: lars@metafoo.de Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 1029 Lines: 21 On 04/27/2016 06:58 PM, Crestez Dan Leonard wrote: > On 04/26/2016 06:21 PM, Daniel Baluta wrote: >> On Tue, Apr 26, 2016 at 4:14 PM, Yong Li wrote: >>> I am thinking if there is any application is using this incorrect >>> name, the application should be fix too >> >> The rule is: "Don't break the userspace ABI". So, if we got this wrong >> from the beginning we are stuck with this name. >> >> The only thing that can save the situation is to know that there is no >> application relying on the name :). >> > But if iio_dev->name is supposed to be the "model name" then setting it > to the i2c dev_name is just plain wrong, right? Correcting this could be > considered a bugfix. It's clearly wrong. But the problem is there might be an application that depends on the wrong behavior, the driver has been around for 2.5 years. So it's difficult to fix. We might just go ahead in this case and take the chance that nobody will complain. But if somebody complains this will bring us the wrath of the Linus.