lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2021]   [Jul]   [21]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: [PATCH 29/29] arm64: dts: qcom: Harmonize DWC USB3 DT nodes name
On Wed 21 Jul 05:29 CDT 2021, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote:

> On Wed, Jul 21, 2021 at 01:02:20PM +0300, Serge Semin wrote:
> > Hi Greg,
> > @Krzysztof, @Rob, please join the discussion so to finally get done
> > with the concerned issue.
> >
> > On Wed, Jul 21, 2021 at 09:38:54AM +0200, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote:
> > > On Wed, Jul 14, 2021 at 03:48:07PM +0300, Serge Semin wrote:
> > > > Hello John,
> > > >
> > > > On Tue, Jul 13, 2021 at 05:07:00PM -0700, John Stultz wrote:
> > > > > On Tue, Oct 20, 2020 at 5:10 AM Serge Semin
> > > > > <Sergey.Semin@baikalelectronics.ru> wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > In accordance with the DWC USB3 bindings the corresponding node
> > > > > > name is suppose to comply with the Generic USB HCD DT schema, which
> > > > > > requires the USB nodes to have the name acceptable by the regexp:
> > > > > > "^usb(@.*)?" . Make sure the "snps,dwc3"-compatible nodes are correctly
> > > > > > named.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Signed-off-by: Serge Semin <Sergey.Semin@baikalelectronics.ru>
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > > > I know folks like to ignore this, but this patch breaks AOSP on db845c. :(
> > > >
> > > > Sorry to hear that. Alas there is no much can be done about it.
> > >
> > > Yes there is, we can revert the change. We do not break existing
> > > configurations, sorry.
> >
> > By reverting this patch we'll get back to the broken dt-bindings
> > since it won't comply to the current USB DT-nodes requirements
> > which at this state well describe the latest DT spec:
> > https://github.com/devicetree-org/devicetree-specification/releases/tag/v0.3
> > Thus the dtbs_check will fail for these nodes.
> >
> > Originally this whole patchset was connected with finally getting the
> > DT-node names in order to comply with the standard requirement and it
> > was successful mostly except a few patches which still haven't been
> > merged in.
> >
> > Anyway @Krzysztof has already responded to the complain regarding this
> > issue here:
> > https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/20201221210423.GA2504@kozik-lap/
> > but noone cared to respond on his reasonable questions in order to
> > get to a suitable solution for everyone. Instead we are
> > getting another email with the same request to revert the changes.
> > Here is the quote from the Krzysztof email so we could continue the
> > discussion:
> >
> > On Mon, 21 Dec 2020 13:04:27 -0800 (PST), Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzk@kernel.org> wrote:
> > > On Mon, Dec 21, 2020 at 12:24:11PM -0800, John Stultz wrote:
> > > > On Sat, Dec 19, 2020 at 3:06 AM Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzk@kernel.org> wrote:
> > > > > ...
> > > > >
> > > > > The node names are not part of an ABI, are they? I expect only
> > > > > compatibles and properties to be stable. If user-space looks for
> > > > > something by name, it's a user-space's mistake. Not mentioning that you
> > > > > also look for specific address... Imagine remapping of addresses with
> > > > > ranges (for whatever reason) - AOSP also would be broken? Addresses are
> > > > > definitely not an ABI.
> > > >
> > > > Though that is how it's exported through sysfs.
> > >
> > > The ABI is the format of sysfs file for example in /sys/devices. However
> > > the ABI is not the exact address or node name of each device.
> > >
> > > > In AOSP it is then used to setup the configfs gadget by writing that
> > > > value into /config/usb_gadget/g1/UDC.
> > > >
> > > > Given there may be multiple controllers on a device, or even if its
> > > > just one and the dummy hcd driver is enabled, I'm not sure how folks
> > > > reference the "right" one without the node name?
> > >
> > > I think it is the same type of problem as for all other subsystems, e.g.
> > > mmc, hwmon/iio. They usually solve it either with aliases or with
> > > special property with the name/label.
> > >
> > > > I understand the fuzziness with sysfs ABI, and I get that having
> > > > consistent naming is important, but like the eth0 -> enp3s0 changes,
> > > > it seems like this is going to break things.
> > >
> > > One could argue whether interface name is or is not ABI. But please tell
> > > me how the address of a device in one's representation (for example DT)
> > > is a part of a stable interface?
> > >
> > > > Greg? Is there some better way AOSP should be doing this?
> > >
> > > If you need to find specific device, maybe go through the given bus and
> > > check compatibles?
> > >
> > > Best regards,
> > > Krzysztof
> >
> > So the main question is how is the DT-node really connected with ABI
> > and is supposed to be stable in that concern?
> >
> > As I see it even if it affects the configfs node name, then we may
> > either need to break that connection and somehow deliver DT-node-name
> > independent interface to the user-space or we have no choice but to
> > export the node with an updated name and ask of user-space to deal
> > with it. In both suggested cases the DT-node name will still conform
> > to the USB-node name DT spec. Currently we are at the second one.
>
> I really do not care what you all decide on, but you CAN NOT break
> existing working systems, sorry. That is why I have reverted this
> change in my tree and will send it to Linus soon.
>

Which tree did you revert this in? 5.13.stable?)

I'm onboard with us reverting this, but for any 5.14-rc and 5.15 this
will conflict badly with the qcom tree, so I much rather take the revert
in my tree - than have Linus run into this mess down the road.

For stable, I don't mind if you merge something...Perhaps you can point
me to your revert and I can pick it up in my tree?

Regards,
Bjorn

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2021-07-21 22:40    [W:0.111 / U:1.496 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site