[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20210127075902.esm3tukq4pwmdf3j@kozik-lap>
Date: Wed, 27 Jan 2021 08:59:02 +0100
From: Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzk@...nel.org>
To: Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...nel.org>
Cc: Marek Szyprowski <m.szyprowski@...sung.com>,
"moderated list:ARM/SAMSUNG EXYNOS ARM ARCHITECTURES"
<linux-samsung-soc@...r.kernel.org>,
"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Sylwester Nawrocki <s.nawrocki@...sung.com>,
Vinod Koul <vkoul@...nel.org>,
Kishon Vijay Abraham I <kishon@...com>,
Bartlomiej Zolnierkiewicz <b.zolnierkie@...sung.com>,
Willy Wolff <willy.mh.wolff.ml@...il.com>,
Marian Mihailescu <mihailescu2m@...il.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/2] ARM: dts: exynos: use Exynos5420 dedicated USB2 PHY
compatible
On Tue, Jan 26, 2021 at 11:44:26PM +0100, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
> On Fri, Nov 20, 2020 at 12:10 PM Marek Szyprowski
> <m.szyprowski@...sung.com> wrote:
> > On 20.11.2020 12:05, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote:
> > > On Fri, Nov 20, 2020 at 09:56:37AM +0100, Marek Szyprowski wrote:
> > >> USB2.0 PHY in Exynos5420 differs from Exynos5250 variant a bit, so use the
> > >> recently introduced dedicated compatible for Exynos5420.
> > >>
> > >> Signed-off-by: Marek Szyprowski <m.szyprowski@...sung.com>
> > >> ---
> > >> arch/arm/boot/dts/exynos54xx.dtsi | 6 +++---
> > >> 1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)
> > >>
> > >> diff --git a/arch/arm/boot/dts/exynos54xx.dtsi b/arch/arm/boot/dts/exynos54xx.dtsi
> > >> index fe9d34c23374..2ddb7a5f12b3 100644
> > >> --- a/arch/arm/boot/dts/exynos54xx.dtsi
> > >> +++ b/arch/arm/boot/dts/exynos54xx.dtsi
> > >> @@ -188,7 +188,7 @@
> > >> compatible = "samsung,exynos4210-ehci";
> > >> reg = <0x12110000 0x100>;
> > >> interrupts = <GIC_SPI 71 IRQ_TYPE_LEVEL_HIGH>;
> > >> - phys = <&usb2_phy 1>;
> > >> + phys = <&usb2_phy 0>;
> > >> phy-names = "host";
> > >> };
> > >>
> > >> @@ -196,12 +196,12 @@
> > >> compatible = "samsung,exynos4210-ohci";
> > >> reg = <0x12120000 0x100>;
> > >> interrupts = <GIC_SPI 71 IRQ_TYPE_LEVEL_HIGH>;
> > >> - phys = <&usb2_phy 1>;
> > >> + phys = <&usb2_phy 0>;
> > >> phy-names = "host";
> > >> };
> > >>
> > >> usb2_phy: phy@...30000 {
> > >> - compatible = "samsung,exynos5250-usb2-phy";
> > >> + compatible = "samsung,exynos5420-usb2-phy";
> > > The DTS change will wait till PHY driver adjustements get merged... or
> > > if the difference is not critical, maybe using both compatibles (5420
> > > and 5250) would have sense?
> >
> > It won't work easily with both compatibles, because in the 5420 variant
> > I've also changed the PHY indices (5420 has no device and second hsic
> > phy). IMHO the dts change can wait for the next release.
>
> I see this made it into the pull request now, but I had not been aware
> of the change earlier, and I'm slightly annoyed to have received it this
> way:
>
> - This is clearly an incompatible change to the dtb, and you all
> noticed that because it would cause a bisection problem. As
> a general rule, if a dts change does not work across bisection,
> we should not merge it at all, because it causes problems for
> anyone with external dts or dtb files.
Hi Arnd,
No, it does not create a bisection problem. The driver change adding new
compatible is already in v5.11-rc1.
>
> - It would likely have been possible to define the new binding in
> a backward-compatible way. I don't see a reason why the index
> values in the binding had to change here, other than a slight
> inconvenience for the driver.
It does not matter since it's a new compatible and old one is not
affected. Nothing got broken before this patch, nothing got broken after
applying it via samsung-soc. No backwards compatibility is affected.
>
> - If the change was really unavoidable, I would have expected
> a long explanation about why it had to be done in both the
> commit message and in the tag description for the pull
> request.
>
> I've dropped the pull request for now, maybe this can still
> be sorted out with another driver change that makes the
> new compatible string backward-compatible.
It's a different hardware. New hardware does not have to be compatible
with old hardware. However old DTB is still doing fine (although with
the original issue not fixed).
Best regards,
Krzysztof
Powered by blists - more mailing lists