Re: [PATCH v2 3/7] phy: omap-usb2: Use generic clock names "wkupclk" and "refclk"

[Roger Quadros <rogerq@ti.com>]

On 05/05/2014 10:23 AM, Roger Quadros wrote:
> On 04/30/2014 06:20 PM, Nishanth Menon wrote:
>> On Tue, Apr 29, 2014 at 11:16 AM, Felipe Balbi <balbi@ti.com> wrote:
>>> On Tue, Apr 29, 2014 at 11:14:20AM -0500, Felipe Balbi wrote:
>>>> On Tue, Apr 29, 2014 at 10:50:39AM +0300, Roger Quadros wrote:
>>>>> +Nishant
>>>>>
>>>>> Hi,
>>>>>
>>>>> On 04/28/2014 07:03 PM, Felipe Balbi wrote:
>>>>>> Hi,
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On Mon, Apr 28, 2014 at 05:01:23PM +0300, Roger Quadros wrote:
>>>>>>> As clocks might be named differently on multiple platforms, use a generic
>>>>>>> name in the driver and allow device tree node to specify the platform
>>>>>>> specific clock name.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Signed-off-by: Roger Quadros <rogerq@ti.com>
>>>>>>> ---
>>>>>>>  drivers/phy/phy-omap-usb2.c | 8 ++++----
>>>>>>>  1 file changed, 4 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-)
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> diff --git a/drivers/phy/phy-omap-usb2.c b/drivers/phy/phy-omap-usb2.c
>>>>>>> index a2205a8..fb5e515 100644
>>>>>>> --- a/drivers/phy/phy-omap-usb2.c
>>>>>>> +++ b/drivers/phy/phy-omap-usb2.c
>>>>>>> @@ -275,16 +275,16 @@ static int omap_usb2_probe(struct platform_device *pdev)
>>>>>>>          if (IS_ERR(phy_provider))
>>>>>>>                  return PTR_ERR(phy_provider);
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> -        phy->wkupclk = devm_clk_get(phy->dev, "usb_phy_cm_clk32k");
>>>>>>> +        phy->wkupclk = devm_clk_get(phy->dev, "wkupclk");
>>>>>>
>>>>>> doesn't this patch cause a regression ? I mean, you're changing the
>>>>>> clock name before fixing DTS. Also, that DTS has been in a major version
>>>>>> of the kernel, so we need to maintain compatibility with it. How about:
>>>>>
>>>>> I'm changing the DTS in Patch 4, but I prefer to do it in this patch
>>>>> to prevent synchronization issues in -next.
>>>>>
>>>>> About backward compatibility, I agree with you but at the same time I
>>>>> don't think anyone using TI SoCs burns the DTB to ROM and needs
>>>>> backward compatibility. We supply our BSPs/SDKs with the updated DTBs.
>>>>> Do you feel strict backward compatibility is worth the effort for TI
>>>>> specific blocks?
>>>>
>>>> dunno, but it would, at least, avoid "synchronization issues with
>>>> linux-next" :-)
>>>
>>> and the bisectability issue.
>>
>> I agree - we cannot drop backward compatibility for DTBs
>> http://git.kernel.org/cgit/linux/kernel/git/torvalds/linux.git/commit/?id=2a9330010bea5982a5c6593824bc036bf62d67b7
> 
> That says backward compatibility for stable bindings.
> In this case, the binding that I changed doesn't even exist in Documentation/devicetree/bindings,
> so it never was a stable binding. 

Forgot to mention, I'm sending a revised version based on your and Felipe's suggestion.

cheers,
-roger