On Fri, Mar 17, 2023 at 07:43:53PM +0200, Cristian Ciocaltea wrote:
> On 3/17/23 18:26, Conor Dooley wrote:
> > On Fri, Mar 17, 2023 at 04:54:47PM +0100, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote:
> > > On 17/03/2023 11:21, Cristian Ciocaltea wrote:
> > > > On 3/17/23 10:31, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote:
> > > > > On 15/03/2023 12:47, Cristian Ciocaltea wrote:
> > > > > > Commit 370f696e4474 ("dt-bindings: serial: snps-dw-apb-uart: add dma &
> > > > > > dma-names properties") documented dma-names property to handle Allwiner
> > > > > > D1 dtbs_check warnings, but relies on a strict rx->tx ordering, which is
> > > > > > the reverse of what a different board expects:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > rk3326-odroid-go2.dtb: serial@ff030000: dma-names:0: 'rx' was expected
> > > > > >
> > > > > > A quick and incomplete check shows the inconsistency is present in many
> > > > > > other DT files:
> > > > >
> > > > > Why not fixing the DTS? The properties should have fixed order.
> > > >
> > > > I was initially concerned about the risk of a potential ABI breakage,
> > > > but I think that's not really a problem since dma-names is not directly
> > > > accessed in the driver and DT Kernel API doesn't rely on a particular order.
> > > >
> > > > If there are no objections, I would switch the order in the binding to
> > > > tx->rx, since that's what most of the DTS use, and fix the remaining ones.
> > >
> > > Since we added the order recently, I rather assume it is the correct or
> > > preferred one.
> >
> > IIRC I checked around the other serial bindings & there was not a
> > consistent order that all serial bindings used, so I picked the order that
> > was used across the various allwinner boards that do use dma-names.
>
> Thanks for clarifying this, Conor! Would it be fine to switch to tx->rx
> order as it requires less changes to fix the inconsistencies?
>
> > Before changing dts files, it's probably a good idea to make sure that
> > the dma-names are not used somewhere outside of Linux.
>
> Right, that means we cannot exclude the ABI breakage concern. Not sure how
> easy would be to actually verify this. Hence I wonder if there is really no
> chance to allow the flexible order in the binding..
If it changes and someone complains, then yes we'll allow flexible
order.
Rob
