[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <YPp7Gi9xKtNJpC1a@kroah.com>
Date: Fri, 23 Jul 2021 10:17:30 +0200
From: Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>
To: Serge Semin <fancer.lancer@...il.com>
Cc: Bjorn Andersson <bjorn.andersson@...aro.org>,
John Stultz <john.stultz@...aro.org>,
Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzk@...nel.org>,
Rob Herring <robh+dt@...nel.org>,
Felipe Balbi <balbi@...nel.org>,
Florian Fainelli <f.fainelli@...il.com>,
Andy Gross <agross@...nel.org>,
"open list:OPEN FIRMWARE AND FLATTENED DEVICE TREE BINDINGS"
<devicetree@...r.kernel.org>,
linux-arm-msm <linux-arm-msm@...r.kernel.org>,
Linux USB List <linux-usb@...r.kernel.org>,
lkml <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
linux-arm-kernel <linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org>,
Amit Pundir <amit.pundir@...aro.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 29/29] arm64: dts: qcom: Harmonize DWC USB3 DT nodes name
On Fri, Jul 23, 2021 at 12:54:51AM +0300, Serge Semin wrote:
> I always thought that ABI is supposed to be something what is
> thoroughly documented and firmly declared to be so. It isn't something
> claimed to be on a random nature but defined to be one when it's
> more-or-less standardized. Thus the Linux kernel developers decide not
> to change something unless it went through the series of iterations like
> testing, stable, obsolete, remove. As I see it the rule-of-thumb is
> supposed to be as "nothing is ABI unless it's declared as such".
Not true at all. Again, if something works in an older kernel version,
and you upgrade to a new kernel version and it breaks, that is a
regression and must be fixed/reverted.
Lack of documentation does not mean an ABI can be changed.
greg k-h
Powered by blists - more mailing lists