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

Roman Kisel
2024-05-20T20:36:16Z

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