On Mon, May 15, 2023, at 18:22, neil.armstrong@xxxxxxxxxx wrote:
> On 15/05/2023 18:15, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote:
>> On 15/05/2023 18:13, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote:
>>
>> Also one more argument maybe not relevant here but for other cases -
>> this makes literally impossible to include the clock ID in DTS in the
>> same kernel revision, because you must not merge driver branch to DTS
>> branch. SoC folks were complaining about this many times.
>
> Actually we handle this very simply by having such patches merged in a immutable
> branch merged in the clock and DT pull-requests, it worked perfectly so far
> and neither Stephen or Arnd complained about that.
It's usually benign if you just add a new clk at the end of the binding
header, as that doesn't touch the internal header file in the same
commit. I'm certainly happier about drivers that just use numbers from
a datasheet instead of having to come up with numbers to stick in a binding
because the hardware is entirely irregular, but there is usually no point
trying to complain about bad hardware to the driver authors -- I unsterstand
you are just trying to make things work.
I agree with Krzysztof that using the same identifiers in the local
header and in the binding is just making your life harder for no
reason, and if you are the only ones doing it this way, it would
help to change it. Maybe just add a namespace prefix to all the internal
macros so the next time you move one into the documented bindings you
can do it with the same immutable branch hack but not include the
driver changes in the dt branch.
Arnd
