On Mon, Nov 14, 2022 at 1:53 PM Vladimir Oltean <olte...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> On Mon, Nov 14, 2022 at 01:08:03PM -0500, Sean Anderson wrote:
> > On 11/14/22 12:23, Vladimir Oltean wrote:
> > > On Thu, Nov 10, 2022 at 11:56:15AM -0500, Sean Anderson wrote:
> > >> these will probably be in device trees for a year before the kernel
> > >> starts using them. But once that is done, we are free to require them.
> > >
> > > Sorry, you need to propose something that is not "we can break
> > > compatibility
> > > with today's device trees one year from now".
> >
> > But only if the kernel gets updated and not the device tree. When can
> > such a situation occur? Are we stuck with this for the next 10 years all
> > because someone may have a device tree which they compiled in 2017, and
> > *insist* on using the latest kernel with? Is this how you run your
> > systems?
>
> I'm a developer (and I work on other platforms than the ones you're
> planning to break), so the answer to this question doesn't mean a thing.
>
> > We don't get the device tree from firmware on this platform; usually it
> > is bundled with the kernel in a FIT or loaded from the same disk
> > partition as the kernel. I can imagine that they might not always be
> > updated at exactly the same time, but this is nuts.
>
> What does "this" platform mean exactly? There are many platforms to
> which you've added compatible strings to keep things working assuming a
> dtb update, many of them very old. And those to which you did are not by
> far all that exist. There is no requirement that all platform device
> trees are upstreamed to the Linux kernel.
>
> > The original device tree is broken because it doesn't include compatible
> > strings for devices on a generic bus. There's no way to fix that other
> > than hard-coding the driver. This can be done for some buses, but this
> > is an MDIO bus and we already assume devices without compatibles are
> > PHYs.
>
> Let's be clear about this. It's "broken" in the sense that you don't like
> the way in which it works, not in the sense that it results in a system
> that doesn't work. And not having a compatible string is just as broken
> as it is for other devices with detectable device IDs, like Ethernet
> PHYs in general, PCI devices, etc.
>
> The way in which that works here, specifically, is that a generic PHY driver
> is bound to the Lynx PCS devices, driver which does nothing since nobody
> calls phy_attach_direct() to it. Then, using fwnode_mdio_find_device(),
> you follow the pcsphy-handle and you get a reference to the mdio_device
> (parent class of phy_device) object that resulted from the generic PHY
> driver probing on the PCS, and you program the PCS to do what you want.
>
> The PHY core does assume that mdio_devices without compatible strings
> are phy_devices, but also makes exceptions (and warns about it) - see
> commit ae461131960b ("of: of_mdio: Add a whitelist of PHY compatibilities.").
> Maybe the reverse exception could also be made, and a warning for that
> be added as well.
>
> > In the next version of this series, I will include a compatibility
> > function which can bind a driver automatically if one is missing when
> > looking up a phy. But I would really like to have an exit strategy.
>
> You'll have to get agreement from higher level maintainers than me that
> the strategy "wait one year, break old device trees" is okay. Generally
> we wouldn't have answers to this kind of questions that depend on whom
> you ask. Otherwise.. we would all know whom to ask and whom not to ;)
A window of time can work, but only when there's other reasons
everyone must update the firmware/DT.
> Sadly I haven't found anything "official" in either
> Documentation/devicetree/usage-model.rst
> or Documentation/process/submitting-patches.rst. Maybe I missed it?
Documentation/devicetree/bindings/ABI.rst
The exact policy depends on the platform (or family of platforms). In
short, if *anyone* cares, then compatibility should not be broken.
Vladimir uses platforms in question and cares, so don't break the
platforms.
Rob
