On Mon, Nov 23, 2020 at 07:25:47PM +0800, Icenowy Zheng wrote: > > > 于 2020年11月23日 GMT+08:00 下午7:15:12, Maxime Ripard <max...@cerno.tech> 写到: > >Hi! > > > >On Fri, Nov 20, 2020 at 08:51:48PM -0600, Samuel Holland wrote: > >> On 11/20/20 5:30 PM, Icenowy Zheng wrote: > >> >>>>>>> +/ { > >> >>>>>>> + model = "PineTab Developer Sample"; > >> >>>>>>> + compatible = "pine64,pinetab-dev", "allwinner,sun50i-a64"; > >> >>>>>>> +}; > >> >>>>>> > >> >>>>>> Changing the DT and the compatible half-way through it isn't > >ok. Please > >> >>>>>> add a new DT with the newer revision like we did for the > >pinephone > >> >>>>> > >> >>>>> We did this on Pine H64. > >> >>>> > >> >>>> What are you referring to? I couldn't find a commit where we did > >what > >> >>>> you suggested in that patch to the pine H64. > >> >>> > >> >>> Oh the situation is complex. On Pine H64, we didn't specify > >anything at > >> >>> start (which is the same here), the DT is originally > >version-neutral > >> >>> but then transitioned to model B, then reverted to model A. Here > >the DT is always > >> >>> for the sample. > >> >>> > >> >>> However, for Pine H64 there's model A/B names, but for PineTab > >there's no > >> >>> any samples that are sold, thus except who got the samples, all > >PineTab > >> >>> owners simply owns a "PineTab", not a "PineTab xxx version". > >> >> > >> >> It's fairly simple really, we can't really predict the future, so > >any DT > >> >> submitted is for the current version of whatever board there is. > >This is > >> > >> I don't think that was the intention at all. The DT was submitted for > >a > >> future product, whatever that future product ends up being at the > >time > >> of its release. Since there are necessarily no users until the > >product > >> ships, there is no chance of breaking users by modifying the DT. > > > >There was no indication of that in the commit though > > > >> >> what we (somewhat messily) did for the PineH64, for the pinephone, > >or > >> >> really any other board that has several revisions > >> > >> Surely a non-public prototype doesn't count as a separate revision! > >This > >> sort of policy strongly discourages ever shipping a board with > >> out-of-the-box mainline Linux support. Because if there any hardware > >> bugs fixed between initial upstreaming and production, the > >manufacture > >> must come up with a new DT name. > >> > >> This is hostile to the users as well, because the "canonical" DT name > >no > >> longer matches the "canonical" (read: the only one ever available) > >> version of the hardware. > >> > >> Do you want manufacturers to submit their initial board DT as > >> "$BOARD-prototype.dts", just in case they have to make a change > >before > >> production? And only after the board is shipped (with out-of-tree > >> patches, of course, to use $BOARD.dts, since the shipped board is > >*not* > >> the prototype) submit a "$BOARD.dts" to mainline? > >> > >> Maxime, can you clarify specifically what the line is where a device > >> tree is "locked down" and further changes to the hardware require a > >new > >> name? First sample leaves the factory? $NUMBER units produced? First > >> sold to the public for money? > > > >The first board that is shipped to a user. From the wiki, the version > >supported here (I guess?) has been shipped to around 100 people, so it > >doesn't really qualify for the "non-public prototype". We still have to > >support these users, whether we like it or not. > > > >> Without some guidance, or a change in policy, this problem is going > >to > >> keep coming up again and again. > > > >There's a few things that are interleaved here. First, there's two hard > >rules: never change the DT name and never change the compatible of a > >board. > > > >The former would break any build system, boot script or documentation, > >and the latter would break the DT compatibility. > > > >Aside from this, things get a bit blurrier since it's mostly about the > >intent. I'm fine with having a DT for a non-public prototype if it's > >clear from day one that it is. In this particular case, the DT just > >stated that support for the pinetab was added. I guess anyone would > >make > >the assumption without any context that this would be for the (or a) > >final design. > > > >Finally, I'd also advise against submitting the parts that are still > >not > >finalized though, because this is also fairly bad for the users. Let's > >take the current situation as the example: from what I understand, the > >screen changed half-way through the process, and the first one was > >upstreamed. This means that any user that would use a kernel with that > >bugfix would have the display working, while rolling back to 5.9 would > >break the display, even though everyone claimed it was supported > >out-of-the-box in mainline. This is a worse situation than not > >supporting the display in the first place here. > > > >> You'll note that so far it has mostly affected Pine devices, and I > >don't > >> think that's because they make more board revisions than other > >> manufacturers. > > > >Yes definitely. Pine devices may be worse though because of their > >policy > >of making their prototypes public. I guess most of the issues we had > >also were due to poor communication: context on what were the Pine > >intentions were missing, and thus we couldn't catch things that turned > >out to be bad later on during review. > > > >> It's because they're actively involved in getting their > >> boards supported upstream. For other manufacturers, it's some user > >> sending in a device tree months after the hardware ships to the > >public > >> -- of course the hardware is more stable at that point. > > > >I mean, it's not black and white either. One could very well send the > >DT > >once the final design is done and that would still be upstreamed way > >before reaching the first user. > > > >> I think Pine's behavior is something we want to encourage, not > >> penalize. > > > >For the DT in particular, yes > > > >> > Okay. But I'm not satisfied with a non-public sample occupies > >> > the pinetab name. Is rename it to pinetab-dev and add a > >> > pinetab-retail okay? > >> > >> To me, naming the production version anything but "pinetab" isn't > >> satisfying either. > > > >I understand where you're coming from, but the point I was making my > >previous mail is precisely that it's not really possible. > > > >You want to name the early adopter version _the_ production version. > >Let's assume the hardware changes again between the early adopter and > >mass-production version. Which one will be _the_ production version? > >The > >early-adopter or the mass-produced one? > > > >There's really no good answer here, and both would suck in their own > >way. The only way to deal with this is to simply avoid defining one > >version as the one true board, and just loading the proper DT in u-boot > >based on whatever clue we have of the hardware revision. > > Then will it be okay to rename current pinetab DT to pinetab-sample and > then introduce new DTs all with suffixes?
No. From my previous mail: > > there's two hard rules: never change the DT name and never change > > the compatible of a board. > > > > The former would break any build system, boot script or > > documentation, and the latter would break the DT compatibility. Maxime -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "linux-sunxi" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to linux-sunxi+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To view this discussion on the web, visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/linux-sunxi/20201123125332.2p5z3ew7svszvyfs%40gilmour.
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature