[RFC PATCH devicetree 00/10] Do something about ls-extirq interrupt-map breakage
Marc Zyngier
maz at kernel.org
Tue Dec 14 02:20:36 PST 2021
On Tue, 14 Dec 2021 09:58:54 +0000,
Vladimir Oltean <vladimir.oltean at nxp.com> wrote:
>
> Hi Marc (with a c),
>
> I wish the firmware for these SoCs was smart enough to be compatible
> with the bindings that are in the kernel and provide a blob that the
> kernel could actually use. Some work has been started there and this is
> work in progress. True, I don't know what other OF-based firmware some
> other customers may use, but I trust it isn't a lot more advanced than
> what U-Boot currently has :)
>
> Also, the machines may have been in the wild for years, but the
> ls-extirq driver was added in November 2019. So not with the
> introduction of the SoC device trees themselves. That isn't so long ago.
>
> As for compatibility between old kernel and new DT: I guess you'll hear
> various opinions on this one.
> https://www.spinics.net/lists/linux-mips/msg07778.html
>
> | > Are we okay with the new device tree blobs breaking the old kernel?
> |
> | From my point of view, newer device trees are not required to work on
> | older kernel, this would impose an unreasonable limitation and the use
> | case is very limited.
My views are on the opposite side. DT is an ABI, full stop. If you
change something, you *must* guarantee forward *and* backward
compatibility. That's because:
- you don't control how updatable the firmware is
- people may need to revert to other versions of the kernel because
the new one is broken
- there are plenty of DT users beyond Linux, and we are not creating
bindings for Linux only.
You may disagree with this, but for the subsystems I maintain, this is
the rule I intent to stick to.
M.
--
Without deviation from the norm, progress is not possible.
More information about the linux-arm-kernel
mailing list