[PATCH] ARM: imx6: allow booting with old DT

[Marc Zyngier]

On 27/05/15 10:05, Lucas Stach wrote:
> Am Mittwoch, den 27.05.2015, 09:33 +0100 schrieb Marc Zyngier:
>> On 27/05/15 09:20, Lucas Stach wrote:
>>> Am Mittwoch, den 27.05.2015, 09:07 +0100 schrieb Marc Zyngier:
>>>> On 27/05/15 08:52, Lucas Stach wrote:
>>>>> Am Mittwoch, den 27.05.2015, 15:34 +0800 schrieb Shawn Guo:
>>>>>> On Tue, May 26, 2015 at 06:43:36PM +0200, Lucas Stach wrote:
>>>>>>> The GPC rewrite to IRQ domains has been on the premise that it may break
>>>>>>> suspend/resume for new kernels on old DT, but otherwise keep things working
>>>>>>> from a user perspective. This was an accepted compromise to be able to move
>>>>>>> the GIC cleanup forward.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> What actually happened was that booting a new kernel on an old DT crashes
>>>>>>> before even the console is up, so the user does not even see the warning
>>>>>>> that the DT is too old. The warning message suggests that this has been
>>>>>>> known before, which is clearly unacceptable.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> To see any early message like this one, low-level debug support is
>>>>>> expected to be turned on.
>>>>>>
>>>>> Using low-level debug might be acceptable for a developer.
>>>>>
>>>>> From a user perspective a kernel update without a corresponding DT
>>>>> update should never render the machine completely broken. Keep in mind
>>>>> that i.MX6 isn't only used in deeply embedded system, but is already in
>>>>> devices where non-developer users might update the kernel. They might
>>>>> even use prebuilt kernels where enabling low-level debug is not an
>>>>> option.
>>>>
>>>> I'd imagine that whoever provides this pre-build kernel would also
>>>> deliver some form of release notes indicating the procedure. Even
>>>> better, an installation script.
>>>>
>>>>> We are not free to break the existing DT stability rules in such a
>>>>> drastic way, especially if keeping things working to some extent is
>>>>> easily done.
>>>>
>>>> That would be on the condition that the DT was correct the first place,
>>>> and accurately described the hardware. It didn't, breaking the contract
>>>> we have the first place.
>>>>
>>>> We can argue for years about DT stability, history proves that it
>>>> doesn't lead anywhere.
>>>>
>>> The fact that we are still in a learning phase with regard to DT and
>>> have made mistakes in the past (and I'm sure we will still do some in
>>> the future) isn't an excuse for not even trying to keep the stability.
>>>
>>> In this case there was a clear consent that we break DT stability by
>>> rendering suspend/resume broken. This was the accepted compromise
>>> between DT stability and the highly needed GIC cleanup.
>>> Completely breaking an entire SoC family in early boot was not part of
>>> the the compromise! Especially as it isn't really hard to keep things
>>> working to the specified extent, as this patch proves.
>>
>> This patch series has been on the list for months, in -next for several
>> weeks, and now in mainline for about a month. I would have appreciated
>> your input and your patch during that time so that your pet platform
>> would have been kept in an acceptable shape. Others have done so, you
>> didn't.
>>
> We are still in the RC phase of 4.1, so no harm has been done other than
> upsetting some developers and potential adventurous users. So we are
> still right in time to fix this.
> 
> I don't have the bandwidth to test every patchset flying by and while I
> didn't provide an explicit ack, I was okay with it by looking at it.
> Honestly I trusted you that the patchset does what was stated in the
> commit message, which is break suspend/resume but otherwise keep things
> working. 

The cover letter explicitly said that I didn't test it on such HW (only
OMAP4/5 and Tegra-2). I don't have any FSL board in my zoo.

>> If you have such a vested interest in keeping this SoC on a smooth
>> upgrade path, then I suggest you at least follow the various patch
>> series potentially touching it, and contribute in a timely manner.
>> Understand that people don't necessarily have access to your favourite
>> piece of HW, and may overlook that kind of detail. I rely on others to
>> let me know about it, and I encourage you to do so.
>>
> I'm fine with fixing things at the RC stages and I did not blame anyone
> personally. What is not okay is that the commit messages of the series
> didn't provide a hint for this kind of breakage.
> Until v6 of this series the warning message read "Outdated DT detected,
> suspend/resume will NOT work", only later it was changed to "Outdated DT
> detected, system is about to crash!!!", which seems to indicate that you
> were aware of the breakage, but neglected to explicitly state this in a
> commit message where it is easily accessible for other developers
> looking at the patches or resolve the problem.

You really are reading *way* too much into a message. I would have
happily happily inserted a quote by Frank Zappa instead, but the meaning
could have been slightly obscure. As to know about such a breakage, do
you really think I care that little about the kernel to deliberately
leave a bug in and paper over it? Please give me a break...

> Also the attitude of saying "DT stability has been broken in the past so
> why bother with it in the future" is troubling IMHO.

Yes, this is a conspiracy. Read all about it.

	M.
-- 
Jazz is not dead. It just smells funny...