Re: [PATCH v2 1/6] arm64/hyperv: Support DeviceTree

[Roman Kisel <romank@linux.microsoft.com>]

On 5/19/2024 11:45 PM, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote:
> On 15/05/2024 19:33, Roman Kisel wrote:
>>>>    static bool hyperv_initialized;
>>>> @@ -27,6 +30,29 @@ int hv_get_hypervisor_version(union hv_hypervisor_version_info *info)
>>>>    	return 0;
>>>>    }
>>>>    
>>>> +static bool hyperv_detect_fdt(void)
>>>> +{
>>>> +#ifdef CONFIG_OF
>>>> +	const unsigned long hyp_node = of_get_flat_dt_subnode_by_name(
>>>> +			of_get_flat_dt_root(), "hypervisor");
>>>
>>> Why do you add an ABI for node name? Although name looks OK, but is it
>>> really described in the spec that you depend on it? I really do not like
>>> name dependencies...
>>
>> Followed the existing DeviceTree's of naming and approaches in the
>> kernel to surprise less and "invent" even less. As for the spec, the
> 
> I am sorry, but there is no approved existing approach of adding ABI for
> node names. There are exceptions or specific cases, but that's not
> "invent less" approach. ABI is defined by compatible.
I should check on the compatible instead of adding a node that is not 
mentioned in the DeviceTree spec as I understand. Appreciate your help!

> 
> Best regards,
> Krzysztof
> 

-- 
Thank you,
Roman