> From: Stephen Boyd [mailto:sboyd@xxxxxxxxxx] > > Quoting Patrick Wildt (2019-03-12 00:36:54) > > On Fri, Mar 08, 2019 at 07:29:05AM -0800, Stephen Boyd wrote: > > > It's mostly about making sure that any existing dtbs don't have > > > their numbers shifted around. So hopefully any overlapping > > > identifiers aren't in use yet and then those ids can be changed > > > while leaving the ones that are in use how they are. > > > > In practice I bet no one uses Linux 5.0's i.MX8M device trees since > > they lack too much support. It's so basic it's not useful. You'd > > still run your existing non-mainline bindings until it is. Thus I > > would argue changing the ABI right now would be the only chance there is. > > > > If you think that chance is gone, then I guess the reasonable thing is > > to keep the numbers and only move those (to the end) which overlap. > > Or put them into that erreneous number gap. > > > > The chance is quickly slipping away because we're going to be at -rc1 soon. I'm > not the one to decide what is and isn't being used by people out there, so I'm > happy to apply this patch now before the next -rc1 comes out as long as it > doesn't break anything in arm-soc area. The confidence I'm getting isn't high > though. Has anyone from NXP reviewed this change? Maybe I can get an ack > from someone else that normally looks after the arm-soc/dts side of things > here indicating that nothing should go wrong? That would increase my > confidence levels. AFAIK no one out there using it for product without being able to update accordingly, as it still has a very preliminary support. So I agree we need to fix it at this early time Tested-and-Acked-by: Dong Aisheng <aisheng.dong@xxxxxxx> Regards Dong Aisheng
