On Thu, 2023-07-13 at 10:24 +0200, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote:
> On 13/07/2023 02:08, Jakub Kicinski wrote:
> > On Mon, 10 Jul 2023 16:13:13 -0500 Dinh Nguyen wrote:
> > > - dwmac->stmmac_ocp_rst = devm_reset_control_get_optional(dev, "stmmaceth-ocp");
> > > - if (IS_ERR(dwmac->stmmac_ocp_rst)) {
> > > - ret = PTR_ERR(dwmac->stmmac_ocp_rst);
> > > - dev_err(dev, "error getting reset control of ocp %d\n", ret);
> > > - goto err_remove_config_dt;
> > > - }
> > > -
> > > - reset_control_deassert(dwmac->stmmac_ocp_rst);
> >
> > Noob question, perhaps - what's the best practice for incompatible
> > device tree changes?
>
> They are an ABI break.
>
> > Updating the in-tree definitions is good enough?
>
> No, because this is an ABI so we expect:
> 1. old DTS
> 2. out-of-tree DTS
> to work properly with new kernel (not broken by a change).
>
> However for ABI breaks with scope limited to only one given platform, it
> is the platform's maintainer choice to allow or not allow ABI breaks.
> What we, Devicetree maintainers expect, is to mention and provide
> rationale for the ABI break in the commit msg.
@Dinh: you should at least update the commit message to provide such
rationale, or possibly even better, drop this 2nd patch on next
submission.
Thanks,
Paolo
