On 04/30/2014 06:20 PM, Nishanth Menon wrote: > On Tue, Apr 29, 2014 at 11:16 AM, Felipe Balbi <balbi@xxxxxx> wrote: >> On Tue, Apr 29, 2014 at 11:14:20AM -0500, Felipe Balbi wrote: >>> On Tue, Apr 29, 2014 at 10:50:39AM +0300, Roger Quadros wrote: >>>> +Nishant >>>> >>>> Hi, >>>> >>>> On 04/28/2014 07:03 PM, Felipe Balbi wrote: >>>>> Hi, >>>>> >>>>> On Mon, Apr 28, 2014 at 05:01:23PM +0300, Roger Quadros wrote: >>>>>> As clocks might be named differently on multiple platforms, use a generic >>>>>> name in the driver and allow device tree node to specify the platform >>>>>> specific clock name. >>>>>> >>>>>> Signed-off-by: Roger Quadros <rogerq@xxxxxx> >>>>>> --- >>>>>> drivers/phy/phy-omap-usb2.c | 8 ++++---- >>>>>> 1 file changed, 4 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-) >>>>>> >>>>>> diff --git a/drivers/phy/phy-omap-usb2.c b/drivers/phy/phy-omap-usb2.c >>>>>> index a2205a8..fb5e515 100644 >>>>>> --- a/drivers/phy/phy-omap-usb2.c >>>>>> +++ b/drivers/phy/phy-omap-usb2.c >>>>>> @@ -275,16 +275,16 @@ static int omap_usb2_probe(struct platform_device *pdev) >>>>>> if (IS_ERR(phy_provider)) >>>>>> return PTR_ERR(phy_provider); >>>>>> >>>>>> - phy->wkupclk = devm_clk_get(phy->dev, "usb_phy_cm_clk32k"); >>>>>> + phy->wkupclk = devm_clk_get(phy->dev, "wkupclk"); >>>>> >>>>> doesn't this patch cause a regression ? I mean, you're changing the >>>>> clock name before fixing DTS. Also, that DTS has been in a major version >>>>> of the kernel, so we need to maintain compatibility with it. How about: >>>> >>>> I'm changing the DTS in Patch 4, but I prefer to do it in this patch >>>> to prevent synchronization issues in -next. >>>> >>>> About backward compatibility, I agree with you but at the same time I >>>> don't think anyone using TI SoCs burns the DTB to ROM and needs >>>> backward compatibility. We supply our BSPs/SDKs with the updated DTBs. >>>> Do you feel strict backward compatibility is worth the effort for TI >>>> specific blocks? >>> >>> dunno, but it would, at least, avoid "synchronization issues with >>> linux-next" :-) >> >> and the bisectability issue. > > I agree - we cannot drop backward compatibility for DTBs > http://git.kernel.org/cgit/linux/kernel/git/torvalds/linux.git/commit/?id=2a9330010bea5982a5c6593824bc036bf62d67b7 That says backward compatibility for stable bindings. In this case, the binding that I changed doesn't even exist in Documentation/devicetree/bindings, so it never was a stable binding. > " > + > + 3) Bindings can be augmented, but the driver shouldn't break when given > + the old binding. ie. add additional properties, but don't change the > + meaning of an existing property. For drivers, default to the original > + behaviour when a newly added property is missing. > " cheers, -roger -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-omap" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
