On Thu, Apr 20, 2023 at 04:16:59PM +0200, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote: > On 20/04/2023 15:00, Mark Brown wrote: > > That's just upstream, what about any downstream users? > Life of downstream. We all know the drill: merge your DTS or suffer. The No, the DT is supposed to be an ABI. The point in having a domain specific language with a compiler is to allow device trees to be distributed independently of the kernel. > I could rework this patch to provide backwards compatible solution like > I did for WSA: > https://lore.kernel.org/all/20230102114152.297305-4-krzysztof.kozlowski@xxxxxxxxxx/ There we go... > > We could handle inversions through an explicit property if that were > > needed, that would be a less problematic transition and clearer in the > > consumer code. > I am not sure if it is worth. The DTS is supposed to describe hardware, > so even if reset pin flag was not effective, it is a mistake to describe > it as ACTIVE_HIGH. Do we care about keeping broken code happy? If yes, > then property is the way to go. If partially, then I can add > backwards-compatible approach like I mentioned above. It's not just this individual transition, it's the whole thing with encoding the polarity of the signal at all - it's a layer of abstraction that feels like it introduces at least as many problems as it solves, and requiring configuration on every single system integration doesn't feel like the right choice in general.
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
