Received-SPF: pass (google.com: best guess record for domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 209.132.180.67 as permitted sender) client-ip=209.132.180.67;
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/6] mmc: dw_mmc: remove the deprecated
 "clock-freq-min-max" property
To:     Andy Shevchenko <andy.shevchenko@gmail.com>,
        Shawn Lin <shawn.lin@rock-chips.com>
Cc:     linux-mmc@vger.kernel.org, devicetree <devicetree@vger.kernel.org>,
        Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
        Ulf Hansson <ulf.hansson@linaro.org>,
        Rob Herring <robh+dt@kernel.org>,
        Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@arm.com>,
        Joachim Eastwood <manabian@gmail.com>, dinguyen@kernel.org,
        Will Deacon <will.deacon@arm.com>,
        "xuwei (O)" <xuwei5@hisilicon.com>
From:   Jaehoon Chung <jh80.chung@samsung.com>
Message-id: <9938e4eb-45aa-bf68-dd64-bb0a23f99e3d@samsung.com>
Date:   Mon, 26 Feb 2018 11:07:38 +0900
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux i686; rv:52.0) Gecko/20100101
        Thunderbird/52.5.0
MIME-version: 1.0
In-reply-to: <CAHp75VcthggOwOPjQFNX-xMmK44F99oXYOdeBxfO=euT_JvkoQ@mail.gmail.com>
Content-type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-language: en-US
Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit
CMS-TYPE: 101P
DLP-Filter: Pass
References: <CGME20180223064140epcas2p104fe6cca431ec24f2b09a6f5a45ed342@epcas2p1.samsung.com>
        <20180223064138.18401-1-jh80.chung@samsung.com>
        <CAHp75Vd27mFnSJTOta0ZWhfOGz1WA8ETNgU_GpuxEJ9nnhsR-g@mail.gmail.com>
        <7ba335af-3fc5-2afd-8c52-03dca5eba9a4@rock-chips.com>
        <CAHp75VcthggOwOPjQFNX-xMmK44F99oXYOdeBxfO=euT_JvkoQ@mail.gmail.com>
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

On 02/24/2018 01:16 AM, Andy Shevchenko wrote:
> On Fri, Feb 23, 2018 at 4:19 PM, Shawn Lin <shawn.lin@rock-chips.com> wrote:
>> On 2018/2/23 21:27, Andy Shevchenko wrote:
>>> On Fri, Feb 23, 2018 at 8:41 AM, Jaehoon Chung <jh80.chung@samsung.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> 'clock-freq-min-max' property had already deprecated.
>>>> Remove the 'clock-freq-min-max' property that is kept to maintain
>>>> the compatibility.
>>>
>>>
>>> Removing a property without telling the user what to expect is a bad
>>> idea and ABI breakage.
>>>
>>
>> What's the general process to remove a property?
>>
>> I guess we should do:
>> 1) deprecate it in the first place and remove it from all upstream DT
>> 2) wait some long enough days for expecting the stale of all old DTB
>> containing that property
>> 3) remove the functionality of the deprecated property from the driver
>> but still leave some warning there
>> 4) remove the left warning finally
> 
> I don't know. Perhaps Rob can shed a light here.
> But I would really OK with removal of some of such properties from
> some drivers where it's more burden to keep them.

This property had deprecated about 8months ago.
I think that it was enough to keep this property for maintaining the compatibility.

I didn't remove this property without any alternative.

Best Regards,
Jaehoon Chung

> 
>> And for the ABI breakage, we should add something in Documentation/ABI
>> /obsolete  or Documentation/ABI/removed ?
>