On 3/10/23 12:45 AM, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote: > On 09/03/2023 19:49, Dipen Patel wrote: >> On 3/8/23 10:16 PM, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote: >>> On 08/03/2023 21:09, Dipen Patel wrote: >>>> On 3/8/23 11:05 AM, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote: >>>>> On 08/03/2023 19:45, Dipen Patel wrote: >>>>>> On 2/16/23 6:17 AM, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote: >>>>>>> On 14/02/2023 12:55, Dipen Patel wrote: >>>>>>>> Added timestamp provider support for the Tegra234 in devicetree >>>>>>>> bindings. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> 1. Your commit does much more. You need to explain it why you drop some >>>>>>> property. >>>>>> ACK, will address it next patch >>>>>>> >>>>>>> 2. Bindings go before its usage (in the patchset). >>>>>> Ack... >>>>>>> >>>>>>> 3. Please use scripts/get_maintainers.pl to get a list of necessary >>>>>>> people and lists to CC. It might happen, that command when run on an >>>>>>> older kernel, gives you outdated entries. Therefore please be sure you >>>>>>> base your patches on recent Linux kernel. >>>>>> It is based on recent linux at the time patch series was sent... >>>>> >>>>> That's good but then why you do not use scripts/get_maintainers.pl? The >>>>> hint about recent kernel was just a hint... Just do not invent addresses >>>>> by yourself and use the tool to get them right. >>>>> >>>> I will take a note for the next patch series to add any missing people. The current >>>> list of people/group is what historically helped review this new timestamp/hte subsystem. >>>> >>>>> (...) >>>>> >>>>>>>> + properties: >>>>>>>> + compatible: >>>>>>>> + contains: >>>>>>>> + enum: >>>>>>>> + - nvidia,tegra194-gte-aon >>>>>>> >>>>>>> This is an ABI break. Does your driver handle it? >>>>>> yes, handling patch is part of this patch series. >>>>> >>>>> Can you point me to the code which does it? I see "return -ENODEV;", so >>>>> I think you do not handle ABI break. I could miss something but since >>>>> you disagree with me, please at least bring some arguments... >>>> Refer to patch https://patchwork.kernel.org/project/timestamp/patch/20230214115553.10416-3-dipenp@xxxxxxxxxx/ >>>> which has compatible properties added and also code changes to reflect addition/deletion of some >>>> properties. >>> >>> I referred to the code which breaks the ABI. >>> >>>> >>>> I am not sure I have understood about ABI break comment. How else one should handle if >>>> there is no related gpio controller property found? >>> >>> In a way it does not break existing users? There are many ways to handle >>> it, but I don't know your code to point you. >> >> It is new subsystem and has only one driver which uses it so far. > > We do not talk about subsystem, but Tegra SoC, which is not new. Unless > you meant this is new SoC/DTS? > >> This was a decision taken >> after review comments (By Thierry, also in the mailing list) to add this property (nvidia,gpio-controller) >> and necessary changes have been made to existing user. From now on, it has to follow this change. > > What is "it" which has to follow? There are rules for stable ABI and > commit msg does not explain why they should not be followed. "It" here means hte-tegra194.c HTE provider which is the only one and not being used by any entity yet. > >> >>> >>>> I am assuming you are referring to the >>>> below code from the patch 2 (link above) when you said "return -ENODEV". >>> >>> >>> Your bindings patch points to ABI break without any >>> explanation/justification. Then your code #2 patch actually breaks it, >>> also without any justification. >> I am going to add explanation/justification in the commit message in the next patch series. But to give >> you context, discussion happened here https://patchwork.ozlabs.org/project/linux-gpio/patch/20221103174523.29592-3-dipenp@xxxxxxxxxx/ > > Either too many messages (and I missed something) or I could not find > why ABI break is accepted and justified. https://patchwork.ozlabs.org/project/linux-gpio/patch/20221103174523.29592-5-dipenp@xxxxxxxxxx/#3000908 and affected code/comment at https://patchwork.ozlabs.org/project/linux-gpio/patch/20221103174523.29592-5-dipenp@xxxxxxxxxx/#3000908. Will it help if I send new patch series with detailed commit message? > > > Best regards, > Krzysztof >
