On Mon, Nov 24, 2014 at 04:17:18PM +0530, Vivek Gautam wrote:
> Hi,
>
>
> On Mon, Nov 24, 2014 at 4:02 PM, Thierry Reding
> <thierry.reding@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > On Mon, Nov 24, 2014 at 11:11:23AM +0530, Vivek Gautam wrote:
> >> DP PHY now require pmu-system-controller to handle PMU register
> >> to control PHY's power isolation. Adding the same to dp-phy
> >> node.
> >>
> >> Signed-off-by: Vivek Gautam <gautam.vivek@xxxxxxxxxxx>
> >> Reviewed-by: Jingoo Han <jg1.han@xxxxxxxxxxx>
> >> Tested-by: Javier Martinez Canillas <javier.martinez@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> >> Cc: Kukjin Kim <kgene@xxxxxxxxxx>
> >> ---
> >> arch/arm/boot/dts/exynos5250.dtsi | 2 +-
> >> arch/arm/boot/dts/exynos5420.dtsi | 4 ++--
> >> 2 files changed, 3 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)
> >>
> >> diff --git a/arch/arm/boot/dts/exynos5250.dtsi b/arch/arm/boot/dts/exynos5250.dtsi
> >> index 0a588b4..bebd099 100644
> >> --- a/arch/arm/boot/dts/exynos5250.dtsi
> >> +++ b/arch/arm/boot/dts/exynos5250.dtsi
> >> @@ -732,7 +732,7 @@
> >>
> >> dp_phy: video-phy@10040720 {
> >> compatible = "samsung,exynos5250-dp-video-phy";
> >> - reg = <0x10040720 4>;
> >> + samsung,pmu-syscon = <&pmu_system_controller>;
> >> #phy-cells = <0>;
> >> };
> >>
> >> diff --git a/arch/arm/boot/dts/exynos5420.dtsi b/arch/arm/boot/dts/exynos5420.dtsi
> >> index 8617a03..1353a09 100644
> >> --- a/arch/arm/boot/dts/exynos5420.dtsi
> >> +++ b/arch/arm/boot/dts/exynos5420.dtsi
> >> @@ -503,8 +503,8 @@
> >> };
> >>
> >> dp_phy: video-phy@10040728 {
> >> - compatible = "samsung,exynos5250-dp-video-phy";
> >> - reg = <0x10040728 4>;
> >> + compatible = "samsung,exynos5420-dp-video-phy";
> >> + samsung,pmu-syscon = <&pmu_system_controller>;
> >> #phy-cells = <0>;
> >> };
> >>
> >
> > It seems like these nodes have been in the Linux tree since 3.12 and
> > 3.17, respectively and these changes break backwards-compatibility. Has
> > anyone thought about the possible consequences?
>
> Sorry for my ignorance, but i have a doubt.
> If the bindings and device node both are being changed in the same kernel
> version (as fixes),
> so that the stable will have both; then the only scenerio of backward
> compatibility comes when kernel is upgraded but not dtbs.
Correct.
> Does such upgradation makes sense for distros ?
Yes. Back at the time a decision was made that device trees need to be
stable ABI because eventually they'd be shipped with the device rather
than the distribution. As such it may not at all be possible to update
them (they could be in some sort of ROM).
For that reason new kernels need to keep working with old DTBs unless an
argument can be made that would justify breaking things. I don't think I
have ever seen anyone win such an argument. One of the rare exceptions
that I know of is if you can prove that a given hardware block has never
been used in an upstream kernel, then changing the DTB in backwards-
incompatible ways would be okay because you wouldn't be breaking things
for existing users.
Thierry
Attachment:
pgpdrccTrECJA.pgp
Description: PGP signature
_______________________________________________ dri-devel mailing list dri-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/dri-devel
