Date:   Mon, 20 Mar 2023 11:01:37 -0500
From:   Rob Herring <robh@kernel.org>
To:     Cristian Ciocaltea <cristian.ciocaltea@collabora.com>
Cc:     Conor Dooley <conor@kernel.org>,
        Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzysztof.kozlowski@linaro.org>,
        Sudeep Holla <sudeep.holla@arm.com>,
        Cristian Marussi <cristian.marussi@arm.com>,
        Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzysztof.kozlowski+dt@linaro.org>,
        Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org>,
        Liam Girdwood <lgirdwood@gmail.com>,
        Mark Brown <broonie@kernel.org>,
        Nicolas Frattaroli <frattaroli.nicolas@gmail.com>,
        Heiko Stuebner <heiko@sntech.de>,
        Jaroslav Kysela <perex@perex.cz>,
        Takashi Iwai <tiwai@suse.com>,
        Paul Walmsley <paul.walmsley@sifive.com>,
        Palmer Dabbelt <palmer@dabbelt.com>,
        Albert Ou <aou@eecs.berkeley.edu>,
        Daniel Drake <drake@endlessm.com>,
        Katsuhiro Suzuki <katsuhiro@katsuster.net>,
        linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org, devicetree@vger.kernel.org,
        linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-serial@vger.kernel.org,
        alsa-devel@alsa-project.org, linux-rockchip@lists.infradead.org,
        linux-riscv@lists.infradead.org, kernel@collabora.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH 02/11] dt-bindings: serial: snps-dw-apb-uart: Relax
 dma-names order constraint
Message-ID: <20230320160137.GB1755078-robh@kernel.org>
References: <20230315114806.3819515-1-cristian.ciocaltea@collabora.com>
 <20230315114806.3819515-3-cristian.ciocaltea@collabora.com>
 <3679f2d0-55f0-1710-abc2-b268b6fc6969@linaro.org>
 <8ae57fe3-56aa-7e50-3eaa-a12a40657baf@collabora.com>
 <80796828-7b38-184a-2e8e-3cfe9158b67f@linaro.org>
 <13cb8dbd-994c-4b38-b715-44a3bf3d278d@spud>
 <e81f02f2-e692-e4ef-1510-fdc285dd5964@collabora.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <e81f02f2-e692-e4ef-1510-fdc285dd5964@collabora.com>
Precedence: bulk

On Fri, Mar 17, 2023 at 07:43:53PM +0200, Cristian Ciocaltea wrote:
> On 3/17/23 18:26, Conor Dooley wrote:
> > On Fri, Mar 17, 2023 at 04:54:47PM +0100, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote:
> > > On 17/03/2023 11:21, Cristian Ciocaltea wrote:
> > > > On 3/17/23 10:31, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote:
> > > > > On 15/03/2023 12:47, Cristian Ciocaltea wrote:
> > > > > > Commit 370f696e4474 ("dt-bindings: serial: snps-dw-apb-uart: add dma &
> > > > > > dma-names properties") documented dma-names property to handle Allwiner
> > > > > > D1 dtbs_check warnings, but relies on a strict rx->tx ordering, which is
> > > > > > the reverse of what a different board expects:
> > > > > > 
> > > > > >     rk3326-odroid-go2.dtb: serial@ff030000: dma-names:0: 'rx' was expected
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > A quick and incomplete check shows the inconsistency is present in many
> > > > > > other DT files:
> > > > > 
> > > > > Why not fixing the DTS? The properties should have fixed order.
> > > > 
> > > > I was initially concerned about the risk of a potential ABI breakage,
> > > > but I think that's not really a problem since dma-names is not directly
> > > > accessed in the driver and DT Kernel API doesn't rely on a particular order.
> > > > 
> > > > If there are no objections, I would switch the order in the binding to
> > > > tx->rx, since that's what most of the DTS use, and fix the remaining ones.
> > > 
> > > Since we added the order recently, I rather assume it is the correct or
> > > preferred one.
> > 
> > IIRC I checked around the other serial bindings & there was not a
> > consistent order that all serial bindings used, so I picked the order that
> > was used across the various allwinner boards that do use dma-names.
> 
> Thanks for clarifying this, Conor! Would it be fine to switch to tx->rx
> order as it requires less changes to fix the inconsistencies?
> 
> > Before changing dts files, it's probably a good idea to make sure that
> > the dma-names are not used somewhere outside of Linux.
> 
> Right, that means we cannot exclude the ABI breakage concern. Not sure how
> easy would be to actually verify this. Hence I wonder if there is really no
> chance to allow the flexible order in the binding..

If it changes and someone complains, then yes we'll allow flexible 
order.

Rob