[PATCH v5 1/6] dt-bindings: thermal: mediatek: Rename thermal zone definitions for MT8186 and MT8188

[Nicolas Pitre]

On Mon, 27 May 2024, Conor Dooley wrote:

> On Mon, May 27, 2024 at 05:25:35PM +0200, Julien Panis wrote:
> > On 5/24/24 20:27, Conor Dooley wrote:
> > > On Fri, May 24, 2024 at 07:24:47PM +0100, Conor Dooley wrote:
> > > > On Fri, May 24, 2024 at 11:04:34AM +0200, Julien Panis wrote:
> > > > > Use thermal zone names that make more sense.
> > > > > 
> > > > > Signed-off-by: Julien Panis <jpanis at baylibre.com>
> > > > Removing the defines is an ABI break. If these are all the same devices,
> > > > but with more accurate naming, then keep the old defines and add new
> > > > ones. However, the GPU1 define changes in the course of this patch which
> > > > is more problematic.
> > > > > [RFC] When PATCH 1/6 and 2/6 are squashed, checkpatch raises this WARNING:
> > > > > "DT binding docs and includes should be a separate patch." That's why I
> > > > > split them in this v5. The problem is that the driver can't be compiled
> > > > > any more at PATCH 1/6. It needs PATCH 2/6 to be compiled. Should the
> > > > > checkpatch warning be ignored here ? Should I finally squash PATCH 1/6
> > > > > and PATCH 2/6 ?
> > > Heh, and there's just one of the issues caused by your ABI break...
> > 
> > Conor,
> > 
> > Would Russell's suggestion be acceptable for you ?
> > I mean, this one:
> > https://lore.kernel.org/all/ZlDMNkdE2jmFgD8B@shell.armlinux.org.uk/
> > 
> > I could implement it, but before submitting it I would like to make
> > sure that it suits everyone.
> 
> How's that going to work? MT8188_AP_GPU1 currently means 1, after your
> series it means 2.
> You're gonna need to pick a different naming for the new defines to
> avoid that. Additionally, why even delete the old ones? Just define
> new names with the same numbering and you don't need to worry about
> any compatibility issues.

Isn't this making a mountain out of a molehill here?

Seriously... none of this was present in a released kernel. The naming 
can be adjusted "atomically" so compilation doesn't break, and 
it is within maintainers' discretion to bypass the checkpatch warning in 
such particular case.


Nicolas