[lkml]   [2020]   [Oct]   [2]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
SubjectRe: [PATCH v2 08/12] ARM: dts: imx6dl-pico: fix board compatibles

On 10/2/20 10:20 AM, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote:
> On Fri, Oct 02, 2020 at 09:41:28AM +0200, Ahmad Fatoum wrote:
>> Hello,
>> On 10/1/20 12:37 PM, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote:
>>>> The existing binding doesn't cover these boards then and needs to be
>>>> extended, no? How about following patch?
>>> What do you mean it doesn't cover? It was added exactly to handle them:
>>> + - technexion,imx6q-pico-dwarf # TechNexion i.MX6Q Pico-Dwarf
>>> + - technexion,imx6q-pico-hobbit # TechNexion i.MX6Q Pico-Hobbit
>>> + - technexion,imx6q-pico-nymph # TechNexion i.MX6Q Pico-Nymph
>>> + - technexion,imx6q-pico-pi # TechNexion i.MX6Q Pico-Pi
>> Still they are unused. So I'd think these boards should be handled like boards
>> that predated bindings: a binding is written that doesn't break existing users.
> OK, let's assume the binding is not correct and DTSes are good.
>>>> [I guess we need to keep the two-compatible list they were originally
>>>> in for compatibility even if it's unused among upstream device trees?]
>>> You want to change both the binding (thus breaking the ABI) and update
>>> the DTS to reflect new ABI. Then why having a binding at all?
>> If we leave the old two-compatible enumeration intact, there is no ABI broken.
> Just to clarify, because I don't get here the "no ABI broken" part:
> ABI is the binding, not the DTS. We can change intree DTS as we like,
> replace compatibles, add nodes, remove nodes. There is no stability
> requirement for DTS contents.
> If we leave two-compatible binding intact, it is a broken binding since
> beginning. Removing non-working, fake ABI is not breaking it because it
> could never work.

Then I misunderstood you. I was thinking about possible out-of-tree users
that have boards based on this and are adhering to the binding. Dropping
the binding would break those (albeit it's a quite manageable form of
brokenness here).

>>> I would assume that either binding is correct or DTS. You propose that
>>> both are wrong and both need changes... in such case this is clearly
>>> broken.
>> IMO the DTS is the correct one. If you want to honor the author's intention
>> that each base board has a different compatible, it should be an extra
>> compatible and not replace the existing one that may be already in use.
> OK, we can go with DTS approach. I fixed few of such cases as well,
> assuming that DTS was intended and binding was incorrect. In such case
> all boards will be documented under one compatible technexion,imx6q-pico
> and DTS will not be changed.

Sounds good. If further differentiation proves to be needed, it can be a
new compatible added in a separate commit.


> Best regards,
> Krzysztof

Pengutronix e.K. | |
Steuerwalder Str. 21 | |
31137 Hildesheim, Germany | Phone: +49-5121-206917-0 |
Amtsgericht Hildesheim, HRA 2686 | Fax: +49-5121-206917-5555 |

 \ /
  Last update: 2020-10-02 10:36    [W:0.119 / U:1.260 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site