On 24/06/2022 22:59, Serge Semin wrote: > On Fri, Jun 24, 2022 at 07:17:53PM +0200, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote: >> On 24/06/2022 16:16, Serge Semin wrote: >>> In accordance with the DWC USB3 bindings the corresponding node >>> name is suppose to comply with the Generic USB HCD DT schema, which >>> requires the USB nodes to have the name acceptable by the regexp: >>> "^usb(@.*)?" . Make sure the "snps,dwc3"-compatible nodes are correctly >>> named despite of the warning comment about possible backward >>> compatibility issues. >> > >> Sometimes node name is exposed to user-space which depends on it. How >> did you check there is no issue here? > > I well remember the Qcom problem caused by one of my patch: > https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/CALAqxLX_FNvFndEDWtGbFPjSzuAbfqxQE07diBJFZtftwEJX5A@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx/ > > The next patch caused the same problem, but hasn't been reverted. > https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/CALAqxLWGujgR7p8Vb5S_RimRVYxwm5XF-c4NkKgMH-43wEBaWg@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx/ > > As before I am more inclined to thinking that the problem was mainly caused > by the improper node-name utilization. Anyway John later noted that the > problem was fixed in the user-space. Yes, I remember. The node names are not considered ABI, therefore any reliance on them is not correct. I wonder however what was the reasoning for this comment in APM DTS. > That why afterwards you were able > to provide the commit b77a1c4d6b05 ("arm64: dts: qcom: correct DWC3 > node names and unit addresses"). > > Anyway I am not able to track the way the node-name is used on the > affected platform and can't make sure that the dts would be still > working well on that devices. But seeing nobody responded/commented on > this patch for more than a year we can at least try to merge this in > and see whether it causes any problem should the denoted platform is > still in use. If it does we can revert the update back and forget > about it. The APM is kind of abandoned, so indeed we might never get a reply. I'll take it. Best regards, Krzysztof
