[PATCH v2 08/12] ARM: dts: imx6dl-pico: fix board compatibles

Krzysztof Kozlowski krzk at kernel.org
Thu Oct 1 06:37:04 EDT 2020


On Thu, Oct 01, 2020 at 12:19:08PM +0200, Ahmad Fatoum wrote:
> Hi,
> 
> On 10/1/20 9:32 AM, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote:
> > On Thu, Oct 01, 2020 at 09:22:03AM +0200, Ahmad Fatoum wrote:
> >>> diff --git a/arch/arm/boot/dts/imx6dl-pico-hobbit.dts b/arch/arm/boot/dts/imx6dl-pico-hobbit.dts
> >>> index d7403c5c4337..08fedcbcc91b 100644
> >>> --- a/arch/arm/boot/dts/imx6dl-pico-hobbit.dts
> >>> +++ b/arch/arm/boot/dts/imx6dl-pico-hobbit.dts
> >>> @@ -13,5 +13,5 @@
> >>>  
> >>>  / {
> >>>  	model = "TechNexion PICO-IMX6 DualLite/Solo Board and Hobbit baseboard";
> >>> -	compatible = "technexion,imx6dl-pico", "fsl,imx6dl";
> >>> +	compatible = "technexion,imx6dl-pico-hobbit", "fsl,imx6dl";
> >>>  };
> > 
> > The bindings, added in commit 53b61224ca40 ("dt-bindings: arm: fsl: Add
> > TechNexion boards"), describe that these are the only valid compatibles.
> > "technexion,imx6dl-pico" is not valid and would require changing the
> > bindings, thus breaking compatibility which you want to avoid.> 
> > The bindings, not what is present in DTS, is considered ABI.
> 
> The existing binding doesn't cover these boards then and needs to be
> extended, no? How about following patch?

What do you mean it doesn't cover? It was added exactly to handle them:
+              - technexion,imx6q-pico-dwarf   # TechNexion i.MX6Q Pico-Dwarf
+              - technexion,imx6q-pico-hobbit  # TechNexion i.MX6Q Pico-Hobbit
+              - technexion,imx6q-pico-nymph   # TechNexion i.MX6Q Pico-Nymph
+              - technexion,imx6q-pico-pi      # TechNexion i.MX6Q Pico-Pi

> 
> [I guess we need to keep the two-compatible list they were originally
>  in for compatibility even if it's unused among upstream device trees?]

You want to change both the binding (thus breaking the ABI) and update
the DTS to reflect new ABI. Then why having a binding at all?

I would assume that either binding is correct or DTS. You propose that
both are wrong and both need changes... in such case this is clearly
broken.

Best regards,
Krzysztof



More information about the linux-arm-kernel mailing list