Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1753463AbaKXK5I (ORCPT ); Mon, 24 Nov 2014 05:57:08 -0500 Received: from mail-pa0-f41.google.com ([209.85.220.41]:52614 "EHLO mail-pa0-f41.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751092AbaKXK5F (ORCPT ); Mon, 24 Nov 2014 05:57:05 -0500 Date: Mon, 24 Nov 2014 11:56:58 +0100 From: Thierry Reding To: Vivek Gautam Cc: Vivek Gautam , "linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" , "linux-samsung-soc@vger.kernel.org" , "devicetree@vger.kernel.org" , Kukjin Kim , "dri-devel@lists.freedesktop.org" , Javier Martinez Canillas , Jingoo Han , Ajay Kumar , Kukjin Kim Subject: Re: [PATCH V2 RESEND] arm: dts: Exynos5: Use pmu_system_controller phandle for dp phy Message-ID: <20141124105656.GA32478@ulmo.nvidia.com> References: <1416807683-2257-1-git-send-email-gautam.vivek@samsung.com> <20141124103249.GA26217@ulmo.nvidia.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha1; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="mP3DRpeJDSE+ciuQ" Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.23 (2014-03-12) Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org --mP3DRpeJDSE+ciuQ Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On Mon, Nov 24, 2014 at 04:17:18PM +0530, Vivek Gautam wrote: > Hi, >=20 >=20 > On Mon, Nov 24, 2014 at 4:02 PM, Thierry Reding > wrote: > > On Mon, Nov 24, 2014 at 11:11:23AM +0530, Vivek Gautam wrote: > >> DP PHY now require pmu-system-controller to handle PMU register > >> to control PHY's power isolation. Adding the same to dp-phy > >> node. > >> > >> Signed-off-by: Vivek Gautam > >> Reviewed-by: Jingoo Han > >> Tested-by: Javier Martinez Canillas > >> Cc: Kukjin Kim > >> --- > >> arch/arm/boot/dts/exynos5250.dtsi | 2 +- > >> arch/arm/boot/dts/exynos5420.dtsi | 4 ++-- > >> 2 files changed, 3 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-) > >> > >> diff --git a/arch/arm/boot/dts/exynos5250.dtsi b/arch/arm/boot/dts/exy= nos5250.dtsi > >> index 0a588b4..bebd099 100644 > >> --- a/arch/arm/boot/dts/exynos5250.dtsi > >> +++ b/arch/arm/boot/dts/exynos5250.dtsi > >> @@ -732,7 +732,7 @@ > >> > >> dp_phy: video-phy@10040720 { > >> compatible =3D "samsung,exynos5250-dp-video-phy"; > >> - reg =3D <0x10040720 4>; > >> + samsung,pmu-syscon =3D <&pmu_system_controller>; > >> #phy-cells =3D <0>; > >> }; > >> > >> diff --git a/arch/arm/boot/dts/exynos5420.dtsi b/arch/arm/boot/dts/exy= nos5420.dtsi > >> index 8617a03..1353a09 100644 > >> --- a/arch/arm/boot/dts/exynos5420.dtsi > >> +++ b/arch/arm/boot/dts/exynos5420.dtsi > >> @@ -503,8 +503,8 @@ > >> }; > >> > >> dp_phy: video-phy@10040728 { > >> - compatible =3D "samsung,exynos5250-dp-video-phy"; > >> - reg =3D <0x10040728 4>; > >> + compatible =3D "samsung,exynos5420-dp-video-phy"; > >> + samsung,pmu-syscon =3D <&pmu_system_controller>; > >> #phy-cells =3D <0>; > >> }; > >> > > > > It seems like these nodes have been in the Linux tree since 3.12 and > > 3.17, respectively and these changes break backwards-compatibility. Has > > anyone thought about the possible consequences? >=20 > Sorry for my ignorance, but i have a doubt. > If the bindings and device node both are being changed in the same kernel > version (as fixes), > so that the stable will have both; then the only scenerio of backward > compatibility comes when kernel is upgraded but not dtbs. Correct. > Does such upgradation makes sense for distros ? Yes. Back at the time a decision was made that device trees need to be stable ABI because eventually they'd be shipped with the device rather than the distribution. As such it may not at all be possible to update them (they could be in some sort of ROM). For that reason new kernels need to keep working with old DTBs unless an argument can be made that would justify breaking things. I don't think I have ever seen anyone win such an argument. One of the rare exceptions that I know of is if you can prove that a given hardware block has never been used in an upstream kernel, then changing the DTB in backwards- incompatible ways would be okay because you wouldn't be breaking things for existing users. Thierry --mP3DRpeJDSE+ciuQ Content-Type: application/pgp-signature -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v2 iQIcBAEBAgAGBQJUcw74AAoJEN0jrNd/PrOhSM8P+gMnYlhj7fxVAgVZF9oPtZPq yQUNcoggLyI+BshlnT1lpTBkzNBufP10Xkg1EF2Ydcxan4KxjJE2xUrxqLKi0RbW cdvKii6JZHwiCDeSzYj+AnbMXT9742b/x38yVUwYMJrUN8quf1EJZZ/LOfgp+HfB XpaAoLiQHkktrg/f2v9qdXaeIAfsniLf+bB8iIp6saqmRXlBK/AViwBRcCyYV03/ A15m9so+JnK7giEM/ka4+5T+Vha6JF/TYJyle7uF4AF+sQJC/Cy+EEWq66vYi+AJ WxGDFoMPyK6rkUl1PgiteK+8J9BKF8/9djkJqKHHdzOS+hqjD6F/0lKakac8hg3l PMMXnqWtwauwiHG185ovO+FA9bvJWDs2OEM5lY54pc319JwBljSxXUZuTrNN+l0m 3KA07XI8moyelhpY4X9A+HTN/yT4ykiNMV/jbF2lXgx/xl33zKovJZrur08f7w8O IJQuqApCzSfYQSeiFJyQGj430iRc2sd1pR7t4UrmkwO4gJG4j+lABsdG5Dr9Urst 5YH0sF2TzfnYVcGtFkrjvzEtfqHIx6lHs+9/mSxLmVT3OesxGwrIgZ/ba0kaHkm4 faHPvrqswY57LdmWAUEhJKyelQN0Mbzykh3eM5NrbOl/xYktrqkiFYgClNCgtS/F TVNYELJq1bLp30TXfaxZ =hybH -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --mP3DRpeJDSE+ciuQ-- -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/