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

sorry for jumping in.

On 20-10-02 10:20, 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.

The problem here is that it wasn't covered by the review and now we have
the mess. I see the DTB and the Bootloader as Firmware. Now imagine if
the bootloader for these boards had some dt-fixup logic which won't
apply anymore or if the bootloader board init won't get called anymore
since the bootloader folks used the compatible found in the DTS. This
can cause a regression if the old Bootloader tries to boot the new
Kernel+DTS.

> > > 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.

Question is what was the author's intention? @Fabio do you have any
comments here?

> 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.

Or keep the exisiting bindings and adding the new one. Therefore the
yaml needs to handle two cases for each imx6[qdl]:
compatible = "technexion,imx6dl-pico-dwarf", "technexion,imx6dl-pico", "fsl,imx6dl";
and
compatible = "technexion,imx6dl-pico", "fsl,imx6dl";

Regards,
Marco

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2020-10-02 10:42    [W:0.062 / U:7.772 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site