[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <8dfb5b8a-766a-14ec-16d4-74fdd9f7d622@linaro.org>
Date: Thu, 8 Dec 2022 10:46:32 +0100
From: Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzysztof.kozlowski@...aro.org>
To: Herve Codina <herve.codina@...tlin.com>
Cc: Geert Uytterhoeven <geert+renesas@...der.be>,
Michael Turquette <mturquette@...libre.com>,
Stephen Boyd <sboyd@...nel.org>,
Rob Herring <robh+dt@...nel.org>,
Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzysztof.kozlowski+dt@...aro.org>,
Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
Magnus Damm <magnus.damm@...il.com>,
Gareth Williams <gareth.williams.jx@...esas.com>,
linux-renesas-soc@...r.kernel.org, linux-clk@...r.kernel.org,
devicetree@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
linux-usb@...r.kernel.org,
Thomas Petazzoni <thomas.petazzoni@...tlin.com>,
Miquel Raynal <miquel.raynal@...tlin.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 3/9] dt-bindings: PCI: renesas,pci-rcar-gen2:
'depends-on' is no more optional
On 08/12/2022 10:05, Herve Codina wrote:
> Hi Krzysztof,
>
> On Thu, 8 Dec 2022 09:26:41 +0100
> Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzysztof.kozlowski@...aro.org> wrote:
>
>> On 07/12/2022 17:24, Herve Codina wrote:
>>> The 'depends-on' property is set in involved DTS.
>>>
>>> Move it to a required property.
>>>
>>> Signed-off-by: Herve Codina <herve.codina@...tlin.com>
>>> ---
>>> Documentation/devicetree/bindings/pci/renesas,pci-rcar-gen2.yaml | 1 +
>>
>> This should be squashed with previous patch. There is no point to add
>> property and immediately in the next patch make it required. Remember
>> that bindings are separate from DTS.
>>
>> Best regards,
>> Krzysztof
>>
>
> I though about make dtbs_check in case of git bisect.
And what would this commit change? In Git you will have
1. dt-bindings: PCI: renesas,pci-rcar-gen2: Add depends-on for RZ/N1 SoC
family
2. dt-bindings: PCI: renesas,pci-rcar-gen2: 'depends-on' is no more optional
so what is the difference for git bisect?
>
> But, ok I will squash or perhaps remove completely this commit.
> It introduces a DT compatibility break adding a new mandatory
> property (raised by Rob on cover letter review).
> Is this compatibility break can be acceptable ?
Requiring property in bindings as a fix for something which was broken
is ok. But this is independent of Linux drivers, which should not stop
working.
Best regards,
Krzysztof
Powered by blists - more mailing lists