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.
Does such upgradation makes sense for distros ?
>
> Although, looking more closely it seems like this isn't the first time
> that backwards-compatibility was broken in these files, so perhaps
> nobody cares...
>
> Thierry
--
Best Regards
Vivek Gautam
Samsung R&D Institute, Bangalore
India
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-samsung-soc" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
