Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 2620:137:e000::1:20 as permitted sender) client-ip=2620:137:e000::1:20;
Message-ID: <03ec1aac-3c6d-892f-fad9-f386a5d4d10e@linaro.org>
Date:   Sun, 26 Mar 2023 22:02:39 +0200
MIME-Version: 1.0
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:102.0) Gecko/20100101
 Thunderbird/102.9.0
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/2] dt-bindings: clock: update rk3588 clock definitions
To:     Shane Francis <bigbeeshane@gmail.com>
Cc:     robh+dt@kernel.org, krzysztof.kozlowski+dt@linaro.org,
        heiko@sntech.de, devicetree@vger.kernel.org,
        linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org,
        linux-rockchip@lists.infradead.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
References: <20230326001535.149539-1-bigbeeshane@gmail.com>
 <20230326001535.149539-2-bigbeeshane@gmail.com>
 <10930783-e1dd-5e75-a2cc-a09af862d949@linaro.org>
 <CABnpCuCzdbWTTp1Gc6wWPsB80J5GYw1QzKtZzzyEYU456E=1JA@mail.gmail.com>
 <1b9c8e19-10f2-824d-9b50-51e7a9287bb1@linaro.org>
 <CABnpCuAWm7jh19JKukOquPnZCwHoJispgDPGJzjYy6T_BZSnbg@mail.gmail.com>
 <717bfba9-1d70-ef09-9193-853a57117926@linaro.org>
 <CABnpCuA7V9ti6BOoz+3Mq-f=PwgxL2K7rOhjo6tJ4QquSZbaSA@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Language: en-US
From:   Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzysztof.kozlowski@linaro.org>
In-Reply-To: <CABnpCuA7V9ti6BOoz+3Mq-f=PwgxL2K7rOhjo6tJ4QquSZbaSA@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Precedence: bulk

On 26/03/2023 19:51, Shane Francis wrote:
>> Bootloader also does not use mainline DTS, so where is exactly the problem?
> 
> In this case uboot does load the target DTB, and it seems a common
> function in rockchips
> downstream boot process, see :
> 
> https://github.com/rockchip-linux/u-boot/blob/ef1dd650042f61915c4859ecc94623a09a3529fa/arch/arm/mach-rockchip/kernel_dtb.c#L70
> 

U-Boot comes with its own DTB, so what does it means "loads the target
DTB"? From where? The one appended to the kernel zImage? No, it cannot...

Any component which operates on mainline DTB must conform to the
bindings (with respect to the ABI), thus your arguments here mean you
are not allowed to change ABI in the future. Never. This change,
assuming original binding was broken, could be warranted.


Best regards,
Krzysztof