[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <YuROg1t+dXMwddi6@lunn.ch>
Date: Fri, 29 Jul 2022 23:17:55 +0200
From: Andrew Lunn <andrew@...n.ch>
To: Marcin Wojtas <mw@...ihalf.com>
Cc: Vladimir Oltean <vladimir.oltean@....com>,
netdev <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
"David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>,
Eric Dumazet <edumazet@...gle.com>,
Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>,
Paolo Abeni <pabeni@...hat.com>,
Vivien Didelot <vivien.didelot@...il.com>,
Florian Fainelli <f.fainelli@...il.com>,
Oleksij Rempel <linux@...pel-privat.de>,
Christian Marangi <ansuelsmth@...il.com>,
John Crispin <john@...ozen.org>,
Kurt Kanzenbach <kurt@...utronix.de>,
Mans Rullgard <mans@...sr.com>,
Arun Ramadoss <arun.ramadoss@...rochip.com>,
Woojung Huh <woojung.huh@...rochip.com>,
"UNGLinuxDriver@...rochip.com" <UNGLinuxDriver@...rochip.com>,
Claudiu Manoil <claudiu.manoil@....com>,
Alexandre Belloni <alexandre.belloni@...tlin.com>,
George McCollister <george.mccollister@...il.com>,
DENG Qingfang <dqfext@...il.com>,
Sean Wang <sean.wang@...iatek.com>,
Landen Chao <Landen.Chao@...iatek.com>,
Matthias Brugger <matthias.bgg@...il.com>,
Hauke Mehrtens <hauke@...ke-m.de>,
Martin Blumenstingl <martin.blumenstingl@...glemail.com>,
Aleksander Jan Bajkowski <olek2@...pl>,
Alvin Šipraga <alsi@...g-olufsen.dk>,
Luiz Angelo Daros de Luca <luizluca@...il.com>,
Linus Walleij <linus.walleij@...aro.org>,
Pawel Dembicki <paweldembicki@...il.com>,
Clément Léger <clement.leger@...tlin.com>,
Geert Uytterhoeven <geert+renesas@...der.be>,
Russell King <rmk+kernel@...linux.org.uk>,
Marek Behún <kabel@...nel.org>,
Rob Herring <robh+dt@...nel.org>,
Frank Rowand <frowand.list@...il.com>,
Tomasz Nowicki <tn@...ihalf.com>,
Grzegorz Jaszczyk <jaz@...ihalf.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 net-next 4/4] net: dsa: validate that DT nodes of
shared ports have the properties they need
> What I propose is to enforce more strictly an update of DT description
> with a specified timeline, abandoning 'camps' idea and driver-specific
> contents in the generic code.
Regressions are the problem. We are supposed to be backwards
compatible with older DT blobs. If we now say old DT blobs are
invalid, and refuse to probe, we cause a regression.
For some of the in kernel DT files using the mv88e6xxx i can make a
good guess at what the missing properties are. However, i'm bound to
guess wrong at some point, and cause a regression. So we could change
just those we can test. But at some point, the other blobs are going
to fail the enforces checks and cause a regression anyway.
And what about out of tree blobs? Probably OpenWRT have some. Do we
want to cause them to regress?
Andrew
Powered by blists - more mailing lists