Hello! On 18/06/15 13:12, ext Sekhar Nori wrote: >>>> Ah, beyond the evalboards, there are device-trees not linked into the >>>> kernel, >>>>> >>>> but flashed into the boards, as originally in OF. They are part of >>>>> >>>> the HW, its >>>>> >>>> description. Not part or description of the Kernel. And you have no >>>>> >>>> way to >>>>> >>>> introduce this fix any more without updating this OF part if you go >>>>> >>>> with >>>>> >>>> new compatible property. >>> >> I see. So how critical is this fix? That should be described in the >>> >> commit description. And if its really critical, stable kernel should be >>> >> CCed too. >> > >> > Now we got to the point, see below... >> > >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> And from the other PoV, device-trees are for something >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> one cannot probe. We >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> can probe for Keystone revisions and can free the >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> end-user from this headache >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> completely. >>>>>>> >>>>>> Keep in mind that this can invite driver patching whenever >>>>>>> >>>>>> version >>>>>>> >>>>>> number is tinkered with in hardware - even for otherwise >>>>>>> >>>>>> software-invsible changes. >>>>> >>>> >>>>> >>>> That's true. But I do not have an overview, how many IP versions do >>>>> >>>> you actually have? >>>>> >>>> I've found one revision in Davinci manual, one revision in Keystone >>>>> >>>> manual, even >>>>> >>>> including minor revision. Checking only major revision now can >>>>> >>>> survive couple of minor >>>>> >>>> changes in IP. >>> >> Yeah, sticking to major version should help. What I am worried about are >>> >> versions coming in future, not those existing. And development on >>> >> keystone architecture is ongoing in TI. >> > >> > This is not really critical fix. Currently bus rate is lower than expected >> > because of these >> > calculation errors. The fix maximizes the bus rate. So newer SoCs will run >> > little bit slower >> > until support is added to this part of the code. Not really critical. So >> > no point in CCing >> > stable maintainers also. > If its not a critical fix, do we really need to care about older DTBs > which have been ROM'ed into production?
I tend not to change the DT binding, but if majority will decide it's the way to go, I'll prepare another patch. Let's wait for other opinions... -- Best regards, Alexander Sverdlin. -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-i2c" in the body of a message to [email protected] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
