From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Patrick Wildt Subject: Re: [PATCH] dt-bindings: clock: imx8mq: Fix numbering overlaps and gaps Date: Tue, 12 Mar 2019 21:59:22 +0100 Message-ID: <20190312205921.GA2723@nyx.fritz.box> References: <1551779342-2640-1-git-send-email-abel.vesa@nxp.com> <155181110921.20095.1641360339603928947@swboyd.mtv.corp.google.com> <20190306130941.dqf3swx66bchm5k2@fsr-ub1664-175> <155205894567.20095.2782332899458282059@swboyd.mtv.corp.google.com> <20190312073654.GA85609@thor.local> <155242319026.20095.4334777579139010310@swboyd.mtv.corp.google.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Return-path: Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <155242319026.20095.4334777579139010310@swboyd.mtv.corp.google.com> Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org To: Stephen Boyd Cc: Abel Vesa , Fabio Estevam , Lucas Stach , Mark Rutland , Rob Herring , Sascha Hauer , Shawn Guo , dl-linux-imx , "devicetree@vger.kernel.org" , "linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org" , Linux Kernel Mailing List List-Id: devicetree@vger.kernel.org On Tue, Mar 12, 2019 at 01:39:50PM -0700, Stephen Boyd wrote: > Quoting Patrick Wildt (2019-03-12 00:36:54) > > On Fri, Mar 08, 2019 at 07:29:05AM -0800, Stephen Boyd wrote: > > > It's mostly about making sure that any existing dtbs don't have their > > > numbers shifted around. So hopefully any overlapping identifiers aren't > > > in use yet and then those ids can be changed while leaving the ones that > > > are in use how they are. > > > > In practice I bet no one uses Linux 5.0's i.MX8M device trees since they > > lack too much support. It's so basic it's not useful. You'd still run > > your existing non-mainline bindings until it is. Thus I would argue > > changing the ABI right now would be the only chance there is. > > > > If you think that chance is gone, then I guess the reasonable thing is > > to keep the numbers and only move those (to the end) which overlap. Or > > put them into that erreneous number gap. > > > > The chance is quickly slipping away because we're going to be at -rc1 > soon. I'm not the one to decide what is and isn't being used by people > out there, so I'm happy to apply this patch now before the next -rc1 > comes out as long as it doesn't break anything in arm-soc area. The > confidence I'm getting isn't high though. Has anyone from NXP reviewed > this change? Maybe I can get an ack from someone else that normally > looks after the arm-soc/dts side of things here indicating that nothing > should go wrong? That would increase my confidence levels. The person that supplied the diff apparently is from NXP, which should be enough to say that NXP reviewed it? It's a bit of a shame that the ones that are CC'd keep quiet. I would take this chance and go ahead with it. After 5.1/rc1 there will be no chance to rectify this in a sane way.