From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from us-smtp-delivery-124.mimecast.com (us-smtp-delivery-124.mimecast.com [170.10.133.124]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.subspace.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 0A0073D0A4 for ; Mon, 22 Jan 2024 13:45:56 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; arc=none smtp.client-ip=170.10.133.124 ARC-Seal:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1705931158; cv=none; b=fl3inKQSn9WdBpel3Nd5H06FDfCBJ35fdppLpTN0PtMuOMno8ODRnC3BNhDZC1c0zlwEE31caE8aM8LVuap29djtZbI/ObWAz8NtLvqXfHQMh10PE4rJHgWvfIEMLV6kLNjhBKXULuqEOoaCJk8eGI9EGuqEUkJk+CD3AiMjrjk= ARC-Message-Signature:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1705931158; c=relaxed/simple; bh=OyJ1bxHA59iy5wXiAvSt/tACh10vEIfuDoG3PJNT2Zs=; h=Date:From:To:Cc:Subject:Message-ID:References:MIME-Version: Content-Type:Content-Disposition:In-Reply-To; b=A9EsuK7OLOLkesydPxnjXtR3bDRgq2Vw7FdTYiqDj3pWt2XwB4qHZg+5+VSc36Feg88J/1Ons/jksMtkL2BkMx+ZW9BKV4n6/OCW3wUnY9rd4AwKG+ykcmQOU3yuFPT1xBrX9FaDAxdn+lYfj4pBsnRs35A8ffjoOwCb/7fywCc= ARC-Authentication-Results:i=1; smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=none dis=none) header.from=redhat.com; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=redhat.com; dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=redhat.com header.i=@redhat.com header.b=RK+iAIib; arc=none smtp.client-ip=170.10.133.124 Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=none dis=none) header.from=redhat.com Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=redhat.com Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=redhat.com header.i=@redhat.com header.b="RK+iAIib" DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=redhat.com; s=mimecast20190719; t=1705931155; h=from:from:reply-to:subject:subject:date:date:message-id:message-id: to:to:cc:cc:mime-version:mime-version:content-type:content-type: in-reply-to:in-reply-to:references:references; bh=plv/ArYH8njxp72HX9LenLJ5/vF2h2cX135s3bxKJy4=; b=RK+iAIibWX0PtWRmcYN1delOs1PeeZmSY7Zes5lH5YQEBUuz5TT57jB5WR9NO4vp+4i0xP G+7a/5QL8llNhB4CXYD3IETGyS7ETpxjlJQOn+J3epgN/iqj7fbZlDECFEzyLaW2fRBJkY 3u7e6p0lc7Rht/d9GWqqOmOv4hqA/Zs= Received: from mail-qk1-f197.google.com (mail-qk1-f197.google.com [209.85.222.197]) by relay.mimecast.com with ESMTP with STARTTLS (version=TLSv1.3, cipher=TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384) id us-mta-582-AxpafggTP76dJjC-eagRvw-1; Mon, 22 Jan 2024 08:45:54 -0500 X-MC-Unique: AxpafggTP76dJjC-eagRvw-1 Received: by mail-qk1-f197.google.com with SMTP id af79cd13be357-7831be985c0so520880385a.3 for ; Mon, 22 Jan 2024 05:45:54 -0800 (PST) X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20230601; t=1705931154; x=1706535954; h=user-agent:in-reply-to:content-disposition:mime-version:references :message-id:subject:cc:to:from:date:x-gm-message-state:from:to:cc :subject:date:message-id:reply-to; bh=plv/ArYH8njxp72HX9LenLJ5/vF2h2cX135s3bxKJy4=; b=qIu1hYFHe/4vxje3Usf9ithD8g1YJ61r/bU968fkDFqmNd1tSIHNjrim8uovOn7A9v fX3z+vRosBCtT/8Uv4HmvB5rKUjXMU8oF0yOfUVjvCuGwqoPpV8pfJvX+RpYSFSGlVSH rijcEWv7dvSrGUqQFZvCBKbG8KAMxIRvGkexQIkVEwVcg1p6siEvAiKUUv1HIJy3areG XtEbspPzeUnUDUQFcm5hsyEbaZHZmdPl7u1ok1USHVJxXVCtBozHor9aeZO/rafRQyu8 nmAxudc+N9sv1xWGl9MRz7kUx1zOSzVH74zCmFz4iR4KJ9/ZeECdQ1pYDaoCEG9HZMdm fmcw== X-Gm-Message-State: AOJu0Yw2iNdPYHf8NEychx50o4iDv5ycgz84DjgOzP8FFeLdUQpfzGzL JN/hnX6IYG6bW/o8HdtcFWENAhSUlO7PQ5VZ72u2vi5+zmAZFEKXLG4H0pi5RaQ9B3uNh3oT2HF wATvxYdCDfVOybeUxIFJfonKwV75Zh9caEuKQgCiG19NqDOE23LsDi4S0P6k= X-Received: by 2002:a05:620a:7ea:b0:781:2c00:c89d with SMTP id k10-20020a05620a07ea00b007812c00c89dmr4283011qkk.42.1705931154109; Mon, 22 Jan 2024 05:45:54 -0800 (PST) X-Google-Smtp-Source: AGHT+IHPeJ09NoZuiWW65L8NTiarhjnXk7pv73Ms+8RbqNyNkF97fXE1zOXmVKQRxwN4jqy2upvwMQ== X-Received: by 2002:a05:620a:7ea:b0:781:2c00:c89d with SMTP id k10-20020a05620a07ea00b007812c00c89dmr4283004qkk.42.1705931153859; Mon, 22 Jan 2024 05:45:53 -0800 (PST) Received: from x1 (c-24-2-114-156.hsd1.pa.comcast.net. [24.2.114.156]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id c14-20020a05620a134e00b007839e9ef1d7sm825174qkl.122.2024.01.22.05.45.52 (version=TLS1_3 cipher=TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 bits=256/256); Mon, 22 Jan 2024 05:45:53 -0800 (PST) Date: Mon, 22 Jan 2024 08:45:51 -0500 From: Brian Masney To: Dmitry Baryshkov Cc: Bjorn Andersson , Eric Chanudet , Ninad Naik , andersson@kernel.org, konrad.dybcio@linaro.org, robh+dt@kernel.org, krzysztof.kozlowski+dt@linaro.org, conor+dt@kernel.org, linux-arm-msm@vger.kernel.org, devicetree@vger.kernel.org, quic_psodagud@quicinc.com, quic_kprasan@quicinc.com, quic_ymg@quicinc.com, kernel@quicinc.com Subject: Re: [PATCH] arm64: dts: qcom: sa8775p: Add new memory map updates to SA8775P Message-ID: References: <20240118155711.7601-1-quic_ninanaik@quicinc.com> <20240119191144.GR3013251@hu-bjorande-lv.qualcomm.com> Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: devicetree@vger.kernel.org List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: User-Agent: Mutt/2.2.10 (2023-03-25) Hi Dmitry, On Fri, Jan 19, 2024 at 10:35:43PM +0200, Dmitry Baryshkov wrote: > This kind of change sets a very bad precedent. This way old kernels > become incompatible with the updated firmware. For me it looks like > Linux kernel suddenly being unable to boot after the BIOS upgrade. > Generally memory map updates should be disallowed after the board hits > the production and the DT is published and merged. There can be other > users of DT. BSD systems, U-Boot. We spend sensible efforts in making > sure that DT is an ABI: newer kernel remain compatible with older DT > files. We expect the same kind of efforts from device manufacturers. > > I think unless there is a good reason, the memory map update should be > reverted on the Qualcomm side as a breaking change. > If this kind of update is absolutely necessary, it might be better to > define a new set of board files utilising the new memory map, marking > existing DT files as legacy. This is on a development board that's not in production yet, so personally I think this change is fine. It's in all of our best interests to have SoC vendors push their code upstream early, even if it means that later on we need to make memory map changes like this. Once this is in production, then I agree with you that changes like this should be avoided if possible. Brian