Re: [PATCH v1] Documentation/process: add soc maintainer handbook

[Conor Dooley <conor.dooley@microchip.com>]

[-- Attachment #1.1: Type: text/plain, Size: 4476 bytes --]

On Tue, May 16, 2023 at 10:31:19AM +0200, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote:
> On 15/05/2023 21:20, Conor Dooley wrote:
> > From: Conor Dooley <conor.dooley@microchip.com>
> > 
> > Arnd suggested that adding maintainer handbook for the SoC "subsystem"
> > would be helpful in trying to bring on board maintainers for the various
> > new platforms cropping up in RISC-V land.
> > 
> > Add a document briefly describing the role of the SoC subsystem and some
> > basic advice for (new) platform maintainers.
> > 
> > Suggested-by: Arnd Bergmann <arnd@arndb.de>
> > Signed-off-by: Conor Dooley <conor.dooley@microchip.com>

> > +devicetree ABI stability
> > +~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> > +
> > +Perhaps one of the most important things to highlight is that dt-bindings
> > +document the ABI between the devicetree and the kernel.  Once dt-bindings have
> > +been merged (and appear in a release of the kernel) they are set in stone, and
> > +any changes made must be compatible with existing devicetrees.  This means that,
> > +when changing properties, a "new" kernel must still be able to handle an old
> > +devicetree.  For many systems the devicetree is provided by firmware, and
> > +upgrading to a newer kernel cannot cause regressions.  Ideally, the inverse is
> > +also true, and a new devicetree will also be compatible with an old kernel,
> > +although this is often not possible.
> 
> I would prefer to skip it and instead: enhance
> Documentation/devicetree/bindings/ABI.rst and then reference it here.

Sure.

> > +Driver branch dependencies
> > +~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> > +
> > +A common problem is synchronizing changes between device drivers and devicetree
> > +files, even if a change is compatible in both directions, this may require
> > +coordinating how the changes get merged through different maintainer trees.
> > +
> > +Usually the branch that includes a driver change will also include the
> > +corresponding change to the devicetree binding description, to ensure they are
> > +in fact compatible.  This means that the devicetree branch can end up causing
> > +warnings in the "make dtbs_check" step.  If a devicetree change depends on
> > +missing additions to a header file in include/dt-bindings/, it will fail the
> > +"make dtbs" step and not get merged.
> > +
> > +There are multiple ways to deal with this:
> > +
> > + - Avoid defining custom macros in include/dt-bindings/ for hardware constants
> > +   that can be derived from a datasheet -- binding macros in header file should
> > +   only be used as a last resort if there is no natural way to define a binding
> > +
> > + - Use literal values in the devicetree file in place of macros even when a
> > +   header is required, and change them to the named representation in a
> > +   following release
> 
> I actually prefer such solution:
> 
>  - Duplicate defines in the devicetree file hidden by #ifndef section
> and remove them later in a following release
> 
> We can keep both, but mine above leads to cleaner changes in DTS file.

I think all of the options involved are either a bit ugly, or a bit of a
pain in the hole.

> > + - Defer the devicetree changes to a release after the binding and driver have
> > +   already been merged
> > +
> > + - Change the bindings in a shared immutable branch that is used as the base for
> > +   both the driver change and the devicetree changes
> 
> The policy told to me some time ago was that no merges from driver
> branch or tree are allowed towards DTS branch, even if they come only
> with binding header change. There are exceptions for this, e.g. [1], but
> that would mean we need to express here rules for cross-tree merges.

I've got away with having an immutable branch for dt-binding headers!
That said, Arnd did actually have a look at this (and suggested some
changes) before I sent it & did not cry fowl about this section. IIRC,
this is actually his wording, not mine.

> > +Branches and Pull Requests
> > +~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

> > +The subject line of a pull request should begin with "[GIT PULL]" and made using
> > +a tag, rather than a branch.  This tag should contain a short description
> 
> a signed tag

I initially had that explicit wording, but I dropped it when I added the
ref to the pull requests doc since that talks about signing. It's
probably better to be explicit & re-adding it is trivial.

Thanks,
Conor.

[-- Attachment #1.2: signature.asc --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 228 bytes --]

[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/plain, Size: 161 bytes --]

_______________________________________________
linux-riscv mailing list
linux-riscv@lists.infradead.org
http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-riscv