From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: kaloz@openwrt.org (Imre Kaloz) Date: Thu, 25 Feb 2016 14:48:16 +0100 Subject: [PATCH 1/2] ARM: mvebu: change order of ethernet DT nodes on Armada 38x In-Reply-To: <20160225113610.351149bf@free-electrons.com> References: <1453907300-28283-1-git-send-email-thomas.petazzoni@free-electrons.com> <1453907300-28283-2-git-send-email-thomas.petazzoni@free-electrons.com> <20160127193143.GF10826@n2100.arm.linux.org.uk> <20160127194512.GA16638@1wt.eu> <20160129114853.GQ10826@n2100.arm.linux.org.uk> <20160224184114.GB2292@1wt.eu> <20160224223350.GP19428@n2100.arm.linux.org.uk> <20160225113610.351149bf@free-electrons.com> Message-ID: To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org List-Id: linux-arm-kernel.lists.infradead.org On Thu, 25 Feb 2016 11:36:10 +0100, Thomas Petazzoni wrote: > Hello, > > On Wed, 24 Feb 2016 22:33:50 +0000, Russell King - ARM Linux wrote: > >> I didn't say no to it, I merely asked a few pertinent questions and >> made some pertinent points. >> >> Let me restate: >> >> * Today, people who switch between mainline and vendor kernels >> experience some pain due to the NIC order changing. >> >> * Mainline has had support for Armada 38x for 2 years now, which is >> long enough for it to have gained users. AFAICS, there haven't been >> any complaints about the different NIC ordering. Changing the NIC >> ordering is going to cause breakage to these users when they migrate >> across the change. >> >> By making the change, we're effectively telling these mainline-only >> users "we don't care about your setups, we're going to break them" >> because that's exactly what we're going to do. >> >> Of course, if no one complains about the change, you've got away >> with it. > > I agree with you that the change isn't perfect, it's really a matter of > trade-off. The perfect change would be to be able to help the network > subsystem in its naming of network interfaces, but this has always been > rejected. It would have indeed been better to add this DT node ordering > work-around earlier, but we didn't do it, and we're in the present. > > So again, yes the proposed change is not "great", but I believe it's > relatively reasonable. If we indeed get feedback that it's breaking > things for too many people, I guess we'll just revert. I don't mind if > things remain as they are today, i.e with a weird ordering of the > network interfaces. It's just annoying for new people using the > platform, but it's not horrible either. I can check during the weekend if the mainlined Linksys boards get broken because of this. Imre