On Tue, Apr 29, 2014 at 11:16 AM, Felipe Balbi <balbi@xxxxxx> wrote: > On Tue, Apr 29, 2014 at 11:14:20AM -0500, Felipe Balbi wrote: >> On Tue, Apr 29, 2014 at 10:50:39AM +0300, Roger Quadros wrote: >> > +Nishant >> > >> > Hi, >> > >> > On 04/28/2014 07:03 PM, Felipe Balbi wrote: >> > > Hi, >> > > >> > > On Mon, Apr 28, 2014 at 05:01:23PM +0300, Roger Quadros wrote: >> > >> As clocks might be named differently on multiple platforms, use a generic >> > >> name in the driver and allow device tree node to specify the platform >> > >> specific clock name. >> > >> >> > >> Signed-off-by: Roger Quadros <rogerq@xxxxxx> >> > >> --- >> > >> drivers/phy/phy-omap-usb2.c | 8 ++++---- >> > >> 1 file changed, 4 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-) >> > >> >> > >> diff --git a/drivers/phy/phy-omap-usb2.c b/drivers/phy/phy-omap-usb2.c >> > >> index a2205a8..fb5e515 100644 >> > >> --- a/drivers/phy/phy-omap-usb2.c >> > >> +++ b/drivers/phy/phy-omap-usb2.c >> > >> @@ -275,16 +275,16 @@ static int omap_usb2_probe(struct platform_device *pdev) >> > >> if (IS_ERR(phy_provider)) >> > >> return PTR_ERR(phy_provider); >> > >> >> > >> - phy->wkupclk = devm_clk_get(phy->dev, "usb_phy_cm_clk32k"); >> > >> + phy->wkupclk = devm_clk_get(phy->dev, "wkupclk"); >> > > >> > > doesn't this patch cause a regression ? I mean, you're changing the >> > > clock name before fixing DTS. Also, that DTS has been in a major version >> > > of the kernel, so we need to maintain compatibility with it. How about: >> > >> > I'm changing the DTS in Patch 4, but I prefer to do it in this patch >> > to prevent synchronization issues in -next. >> > >> > About backward compatibility, I agree with you but at the same time I >> > don't think anyone using TI SoCs burns the DTB to ROM and needs >> > backward compatibility. We supply our BSPs/SDKs with the updated DTBs. >> > Do you feel strict backward compatibility is worth the effort for TI >> > specific blocks? >> >> dunno, but it would, at least, avoid "synchronization issues with >> linux-next" :-) > > and the bisectability issue. I agree - we cannot drop backward compatibility for DTBs http://git.kernel.org/cgit/linux/kernel/git/torvalds/linux.git/commit/?id=2a9330010bea5982a5c6593824bc036bf62d67b7 " + + 3) Bindings can be augmented, but the driver shouldn't break when given + the old binding. ie. add additional properties, but don't change the + meaning of an existing property. For drivers, default to the original + behaviour when a newly added property is missing. " Regards, Nishanth Menon -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe devicetree" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
