Re: [PATCH] CHROMIUM: arm64: dts: qcom: Add sc7180-gelarshie

[Bjorn Andersson <bjorn.andersson@linaro.org>]

On Wed 11 May 09:09 PDT 2022, Doug Anderson wrote:

> Hi,
> 
> On Wed, May 11, 2022 at 12:20 AM Krzysztof Kozlowski
> <krzysztof.kozlowski@linaro.org> wrote:
> >
> > On 11/05/2022 04:39, Julius Werner wrote:
> > >> Wait, we agreed that you don't consider them identical, didn't we? If
> > >> they are identical, you do not need rev4 at all. So they are not
> > >> identical...
> > >
> > > Well, they are identical until they're not. We intend them to be
> > > identical. But for practical purposes it does sometimes happen that
> > > two board revisions which were meant to be indistinguishable by
> > > software end up needing to be distinguished at a later point, when
> > > both the hardware and firmware can no longer be changed. We need to
> > > allow an escape hatch for that case. It does not happen often, so just
> > > treating them all as separate boards from the start is not a scalable
> > > solution. DTBs are not free when they all need to be packaged in the
> > > same kernel image.
> >
> > You split more important part of my message, ignoring the point.
> >
> > So you choose they are not identical, fine. Why insisting on adding
> > fallback compatible while not keeping bindings updated? Just don't add
> > the compatible and work on rev3 or rev4. Doug even once wrote "_we don't
> > know_ if -rev7 and -rev8 are compatible", so don't make them compatible.
> > Don't add fallbacks or some generic unspecified front-compatibles and
> > just work on revision.
> 
> Somehow, it seems like we keep talking past each other here and it
> feels like folks are getting upset and we're not moving forward. Maybe
> the right way to make progress is to find some face-to-face time at a
> future conference and sit in front of a white board and hash it out.
> That being said:
> 
> * Without changing our bootloader or having a big explosion in the
> number of dts files, we really can't change our scheme. The best we
> can do is document it.
> 
> * If we want to change our scheme, we'd need to sit down and come to
> an agreement that satisfies everyone, if such a thing is possible.
> That would only be able to affect future boards. We don't want to
> change the bootloader dts loading scheme on old boards.
> 

In particular we don't want to end up with a scheme that requires you to
spin new software for hardware that you think is compatible with the
existing description provided to the software, that would just cause
logistical overhead.

> 
> > >> Right now it's not possible to validate QCOM DTSes against DT bindings
> > >> because they throw big fat warnings about undocumented top compatibles.
> > >> This is a downside for us.
> > >
> > > But that's a solvable problem, right? As I understand, what Doug was
> > > initially just asking was whether it made _sense_ to document all of
> > > these... not that we couldn't do it. Then this whole thread went down
> > > a rabbit hole of whether our compatible assignments are allowed in the
> > > first place. If we can compromise on this discussion by just doing
> > > whatever needs to be done to make the tool happy, I think(?) we can
> > > provide that.
> >
> > None of recent patches from Chromium were doing it, even after
> > complaining from my side, so why do you suddenly believe that it is
> > "doable"? If yes, please start doing it and fix the DTSes which you
> > already submitted without bindings.
> >
> > To remind - entire discussion started with Doug saying it is pure
> > overhead for him.
> 
> I mean, to be fair I said it _seems_ pure overhead and then said that
> we could do it if it makes some tools happy. ...but before doing that,
> I wanted to make sure it was actually valuable. I still have doubts
> about the assertion that the most specific compatible is guaranteed to
> uniquely identify hardware. So if the whole reason for doing this is
> to make the validation tools happy and there's no other value, then at
> least it's plausible to argue that the tools could simply be fixed to
> allow this and not shout about it. Now, certainly I'm not arguing that
> yaml validation in general is useless. I'm in agreement that we want
> dts files to be able to be formally validated because it catches
> typos, missing properties, and bugs. I am _only_ saying that I still
> haven't seen a good argument for why we need to validate the top-level
> compatible string. Since there no properties associated with the
> top-level compatible string, it's mostly just checking did some one
> copy-paste the compatible string from one file (the dts file) to the
> other file (the yaml file) correctly. To me, that does not feel like a
> useful check.
> 
> The other thing I wanted to make sure was that we weren't just going
> to get NAKed later if/when we had to adjust compatible strings on
> existing dts files.
> 

I don't have a reason for rejecting such changes, as long as it doesn't
affect your ability to run off existing DTBs - but in the end you'd be
the ones suffering most from that...

Regards,
Bjorn

> In any case, I guess I'll make an attempt to document the compatibles
> for existing Chromebooks and we'll see what happens. I'm still not
> convinced of the value, but as long as we're not going to get NAKed
> for documenting reality it's fine.
> 
> -Doug
> 
> -Doug