Re: [PATCH 29/29] arm64: dts: qcom: Harmonize DWC USB3 DT nodes name

Greg Kroah-Hartman
2021-07-21T11:10:39Z

On Wed, Jul 21, 2021 at 12:45:32PM +0200, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote:
> On 21/07/2021 12:29, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote:
> > On Wed, Jul 21, 2021 at 01:02:20PM +0300, Serge Semin wrote:
> >> Hi Greg,
> >> @Krzysztof, @Rob, please join the discussion so to finally get done
> >> with the concerned issue.
> >>
> >> On Wed, Jul 21, 2021 at 09:38:54AM +0200, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote:
> >>> On Wed, Jul 14, 2021 at 03:48:07PM +0300, Serge Semin wrote:
> >>>> Hello John,
> >>>>
> >>>> On Tue, Jul 13, 2021 at 05:07:00PM -0700, John Stultz wrote:
> >>>>> On Tue, Oct 20, 2020 at 5:10 AM Serge Semin
> >>>>> <Sergey.Semin@baikalelectronics.ru> wrote:
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> In accordance with the DWC USB3 bindings the corresponding node
> >>>>>> name is suppose to comply with the Generic USB HCD DT schema, which
> >>>>>> requires the USB nodes to have the name acceptable by the regexp:
> >>>>>> "^usb(@.*)?" . Make sure the "snps,dwc3"-compatible nodes are correctly
> >>>>>> named.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Signed-off-by: Serge Semin <Sergey.Semin@baikalelectronics.ru>
> >>>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>> I know folks like to ignore this, but this patch breaks AOSP on db845c. :(
> >>>>
> >>>> Sorry to hear that. Alas there is no much can be done about it.
> >>>
> >>> Yes there is, we can revert the change. We do not break existing
> >>> configurations, sorry.
> >>
> >> By reverting this patch we'll get back to the broken dt-bindings
> >> since it won't comply to the current USB DT-nodes requirements
> >> which at this state well describe the latest DT spec:
> >> https://github.com/devicetree-org/devicetree-specification/releases/tag/v0.3
> >> Thus the dtbs_check will fail for these nodes.
> >>
> >> Originally this whole patchset was connected with finally getting the
> >> DT-node names in order to comply with the standard requirement and it
> >> was successful mostly except a few patches which still haven't been
> >> merged in.
> >>
> >> Anyway @Krzysztof has already responded to the complain regarding this
> >> issue here:
> >> https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/20201221210423.GA2504@kozik-lap/
> >> but noone cared to respond on his reasonable questions in order to
> >> get to a suitable solution for everyone. Instead we are
> >> getting another email with the same request to revert the changes.
> >> Here is the quote from the Krzysztof email so we could continue the
> >> discussion:
> >>
> >> On Mon, 21 Dec 2020 13:04:27 -0800 (PST), Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzk@kernel.org> wrote:
> >>> On Mon, Dec 21, 2020 at 12:24:11PM -0800, John Stultz wrote:
> >>>> On Sat, Dec 19, 2020 at 3:06 AM Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzk@kernel.org> wrote:
> >>>>> ...
> >>>>>
> >>>>> The node names are not part of an ABI, are they? I expect only
> >>>>> compatibles and properties to be stable. If user-space looks for
> >>>>> something by name, it's a user-space's mistake. Not mentioning that you
> >>>>> also look for specific address... Imagine remapping of addresses with
> >>>>> ranges (for whatever reason) - AOSP also would be broken? Addresses are
> >>>>> definitely not an ABI.
> >>>>
> >>>> Though that is how it's exported through sysfs.
> >>>
> >>> The ABI is the format of sysfs file for example in /sys/devices. However
> >>> the ABI is not the exact address or node name of each device.
> >>>
> >>>> In AOSP it is then used to setup the configfs gadget by writing that
> >>>> value into /config/usb_gadget/g1/UDC.
> >>>>
> >>>> Given there may be multiple controllers on a device, or even if its
> >>>> just one and the dummy hcd driver is enabled, I'm not sure how folks
> >>>> reference the "right" one without the node name?
> >>>
> >>> I think it is the same type of problem as for all other subsystems, e.g.
> >>> mmc, hwmon/iio. They usually solve it either with aliases or with
> >>> special property with the name/label.
> >>>
> >>>> I understand the fuzziness with sysfs ABI, and I get that having
> >>>> consistent naming is important, but like the eth0 -> enp3s0 changes,
> >>>> it seems like this is going to break things.
> >>>
> >>> One could argue whether interface name is or is not ABI. But please tell
> >>> me how the address of a device in one's representation (for example DT)
> >>> is a part of a stable interface?
> >>>
> >>>> Greg? Is there some better way AOSP should be doing this?
> >>>
> >>> If you need to find specific device, maybe go through the given bus and
> >>> check compatibles?
> >>>
> >>> Best regards,
> >>> Krzysztof
> >>
> >> So the main question is how is the DT-node really connected with ABI
> >> and is supposed to be stable in that concern?
> >>
> >> As I see it even if it affects the configfs node name, then we may
> >> either need to break that connection and somehow deliver DT-node-name
> >> independent interface to the user-space or we have no choice but to
> >> export the node with an updated name and ask of user-space to deal
> >> with it. In both suggested cases the DT-node name will still conform
> >> to the USB-node name DT spec. Currently we are at the second one.
> >
> > I really do not care what you all decide on, but you CAN NOT break
> > existing working systems, sorry. That is why I have reverted this
> > change in my tree and will send it to Linus soon.
>
> I had impression that kernel defines interfaces which should be used and
> are stable (e.g. syscalls, sysfs and so on). This case is example of
> user-space relying on something not being marked as part of ABI. Instead
> they found something working for them and now it is being used in "we
> cannot break existing systems". Basically, AOSP unilaterally created a
> stable ABI and now kernel has to stick to it.

Since when are configfs names NOT a user-visable api?

Why would you not depend on them?

> Really, all normal systems depend on aliases or names and here we have
> dependency on device address. I proposed way how AOSP should be fixed.
> Anything happened? Nope.

Please work with the Android developers to fix this in their tree. I
know they take patches quite easily if sent to them. If this gets fixed
in their tree I will gladly revert this change.

> The device address can change. The node name can change. Reverting such
> changes is incorrect but my arguments why we can break existing systems
> who use weird, incorrect and not stable interfaces were not accepted and
> I do not have anything new in this matter.
>
> Greg,
> You also did not join the discussion but use simple revert. It's not
> cooperative... what next? Serge sends the same patch to SoC tree and it
> gets merged and then you revert it again?

Yup, I can do this all day :)

Again, do NOT break working systems please, that's pretty much the ONLY
rule we have in kernel development. It's not that complex of a rule...

thanks,

greg k-h