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;
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <CGME20200204125854eucas1p19ace564a5f45b9231e0fba8af07009cd@eucas1p1.samsung.com>
 <20200204125844.19955-1-m.szyprowski@samsung.com> <20200205054508.GG60221@umbus.fritz.box>
 <bc380fd8-71bb-897e-f060-b51386dec9be@samsung.com> <20200210234406.GH22584@umbus.fritz.box>
In-Reply-To: <20200210234406.GH22584@umbus.fritz.box>
From:   Rob Herring <robh@kernel.org>
Date:   Tue, 11 Feb 2020 14:29:22 -0600
Message-ID: <CAL_JsqJLLWnx-K9T5wv_i+FnPwbWpfak4RD_9P1Xz_2-XkYncA@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] libfdt: place new nodes & properties after the parent's ones
To:     David Gibson <david@gibson.dropbear.id.au>
Cc:     Marek Szyprowski <m.szyprowski@samsung.com>,
        Devicetree Compiler <devicetree-compiler@vger.kernel.org>,
        "linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
        Bartlomiej Zolnierkiewicz <b.zolnierkie@samsung.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

On Mon, Feb 10, 2020 at 5:44 PM David Gibson
<david@gibson.dropbear.id.au> wrote:
>
> On Mon, Feb 10, 2020 at 12:40:19PM +0100, Marek Szyprowski wrote:
> > Hi David,
> >
> > On 05.02.2020 06:45, David Gibson wrote:
> > > On Tue, Feb 04, 2020 at 01:58:44PM +0100, Marek Szyprowski wrote:
> > >> While applying dt-overlays using libfdt code, the order of the applied
> > >> properties and sub-nodes is reversed. This should not be a problem in
> > >> ideal world (mainline), but this matters for some vendor specific/custom
> > >> dtb files. This can be easily fixed by the little change to libfdt code:
> > >> any new properties and sub-nodes should be added after the parent's node
> > >> properties and subnodes.
> > >>
> > >> Signed-off-by: Marek Szyprowski <m.szyprowski@samsung.com>
> > > I'm not convinced this is a good idea.
> > >
> > > First, anything that relies on the order of properties or subnodes in
> > > a dtb is deeply, fundamentally broken.  That can't even really be a
> > > problem with a dtb file itself, only with the code processing it.
> >
> > I agree about the properties, but generally the order of nodes usually
> > implies the order of creation of some devices or objects.
>
> Huh?  From the device tree client's point of view the devices just
> exist - the order of creation should not be visible to it.

I'm not sure if downstream is different, but upstream this stems from
Linux initcalls being processed in link order within a given level.
It's much better than it used to be, but short of randomizing the
ordering, I'm not sure we'll ever find and fix all these hidden
dependencies.

> > This sometimes
> > has some side-effects.
>
> If those side effects matter, your code is broken.  If you need to
> apply an order to nodes, you should be looking at 'reg' or other
> properties.

The general preference is to sort by 'reg'. And we try to catch and
reject any node re-ordering patches.

Rob