Message-ID: <CAMhs-H9UW=zkLs+cPkzXUj=TEytH75Y0dX_7NP1E2s-JeoANzA@mail.gmail.com>
Date:   Mon, 13 Feb 2023 20:57:06 +0100
From:   Sergio Paracuellos <sergio.paracuellos@...il.com>
To:     Guenter Roeck <linux@...ck-us.net>
Cc:     Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzysztof.kozlowski@...aro.org>,
        Arınç ÜNAL <arinc.unal@...nc9.com>,
        linux-watchdog@...r.kernel.org, wim@...ux-watchdog.org,
        robh+dt@...nel.org, krzysztof.kozlowski+dt@...aro.org,
        matthias.bgg@...il.com, tsbogend@...ha.franken.de,
        p.zabel@...gutronix.de, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        devicetree@...r.kernel.org, linux-mips@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 1/5] dt-bindings: watchdog: mt7621-wdt: add phandle to
 access system controller registers

On Mon, Feb 13, 2023 at 8:36 PM Guenter Roeck <linux@...ck-us.net> wrote:
>
> On Mon, Feb 13, 2023 at 09:59:35AM +0100, Sergio Paracuellos wrote:
> > On Sun, Feb 12, 2023 at 4:27 PM Guenter Roeck <linux@...ck-us.net> wrote:
> > >
> > > On 2/12/23 00:13, Sergio Paracuellos wrote:
> > > > On Sat, Feb 11, 2023 at 12:42 PM Krzysztof Kozlowski
> > > > <krzysztof.kozlowski@...aro.org> wrote:
> > > >>
> > > >> On 11/02/2023 12:01, Sergio Paracuellos wrote:
> > > >>> On Sat, Feb 11, 2023 at 11:47 AM Arınç ÜNAL <arinc.unal@...nc9.com> wrote:
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>> On 11.02.2023 13:41, Sergio Paracuellos wrote:
> > > >>>>> On Sat, Feb 11, 2023 at 10:10 AM Arınç ÜNAL <arinc.unal@...nc9.com> wrote:
> > > >>>>>>
> > > >>>>>> Is this mediatek,sysctl property required after your changes on the
> > > >>>>>> watchdog code?
> > > >>>>>
> > > >>>>> I don't really understand the question :-) Yes, it is. Since we have
> > > >>>>> introduced a new phandle in the watchdog node to be able to access the
> > > >>>>> reset status register through the 'sysc' syscon node.
> > > >>>>> We need the bindings to be aligned with the mt7621.dtsi file and we
> > > >>>>> are getting the syscon regmap handler via
> > > >>>>> 'syscon_regmap_lookup_by_phandle()'. See PATCH 5 of the series, Arınç.
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>> I believe you need to put mediatek,sysctl under "required:".
> > > >>>
> > > >>> Ah, I understood your question now :-). You meant 'required' property.
> > > >>> I need more coffee, I guess :-). I am not sure if you can add
> > > >>> properties as required after bindings are already mainlined for
> > > >>> compatibility issues. The problem with this SoC is that drivers become
> > > >>> mainlined before the device tree was so if things are properly fixed
> > > >>> now this kind of issues appear.  Let's see Krzysztof and Rob comments
> > > >>> for this.
> > > >>
> > > >> If your driver fails to probe without mediatek,sysctl, you already made
> > > >> it required (thus broke the ABI) regardless what dt-binding is saying.
> > > >> In such case you should update dt-binding to reflect reality.
> > > >>
> > > >> Now ABI break is different case. Usually you should not break it without
> > > >> valid reasons (e.g. it was never working before). Your commit msg
> > > >> suggests that you only improve the code, thus ABI break is not really
> > > >> justified. In such case - binding is correct, driver should be reworked
> > > >> to accept DTS without the new property.
> > > >
> > > > Thanks for clarification, Krzysztof. Ok, so if this is the case I need
> > > > to add this property required (as Arinc was properly pointing out in
> > > > previous mail) since without it the driver is going to fail on probe
> > > > (PATCH 5 of the series). I understand the "it was never working
> > > > before" argument reason for ABI breaks. What happens if the old driver
> > > > code was not ideal and totally dependent on architecture specific
> > > > operations when this could be totally avoided and properly make arch
> > > > independent agnostic drivers? This driver was added in 2016 [0]. There
> > > > was not a device tree file in the kernel for this SoC mainlined until
> > > > 2022 [1]. I also personally migrated this watchdog binding in 2022
> > > > from text to YAML and maintained it without changes [2]. When this was
> > > > mainlined not all drivers were properly reviewed and the current code
> > > > was just maintained as it is. Most users of this SoC are in the
> > > > openWRT community where the dtsi of the mainline is not used yet and
> > > > they maintain their own mt7621.dtsi files. Also, when a new version of
> > > > the openWRT selected kernel is added they also modify and align with
> > > > its mt7621.dtsi file without maintaining previous dtb's. If "make the
> > > > driver arch independent to be able to be compile tested" and this kind
> > > > of arguments are not valid at all I need to know because I have
> > > > started to review driver code for this SoC and other drivers also have
> > > > the same arch dependency that ideally should be avoided in the same
> > > > way. This at the end means to break the ABI again in the future for
> > > > those drivers / bindings. So I can just let them be as it is and not
> > > > provide any change at all and continue without being compile tested
> > > > and other beneficial features to detect future driver breakage.
> > > >
> > >
> > > Problem is that there are (presumably) shipped systems out there with
> > > the old devicetree file. The watchdog driver would no longer instantiate
> > > on those systems.
> >
> > Ok, I will maintain only the PATCH that changes the driver to not use
> > globals and send v5.
> >
>
> Other options might be to search for the "syscon" node name or to search
> for the "mediatek,mt7621-sysc" compatible.

Thanks for the hint. I didn't know about
'syscon_regmap_lookup_by_compatible()'. I will use this to avoid DTB
ABI breakage and allow the driver to be selected for COMPILE_TEST..

Thanks, Guenter.

Best regards,
    Sergio Paracuellos

>
> Guenter
>
> > >
> > > Guenter
> > >
> >
> > Thanks,
> >     Sergio Paracuellos

Powered by blists - more mailing lists