Re: [PATCH v2 1/2] dt-bindings: usb: mt6360-tcpc: Drop interrupt-names

From: AngeloGioacchino Del Regno <angelogioacchino.delregno@collabora.com>
To: Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzysztof.kozlowski@linaro.org>,
	Conor Dooley <conor@kernel.org>,
	robh+dt@kernel.org, krzysztof.kozlowski+dt@linaro.org
Cc: chunfeng.yun@mediatek.com, gregkh@linuxfoundation.org,
	conor+dt@kernel.org, matthias.bgg@gmail.com, linux@roeck-us.net,
	heikki.krogerus@linux.intel.com, cy_huang@richtek.com,
	linux-usb@vger.kernel.org, linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org,
	linux-mediatek@lists.infradead.org, devicetree@vger.kernel.org,
	linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 1/2] dt-bindings: usb: mt6360-tcpc: Drop interrupt-names
Date: Thu, 25 Jan 2024 12:41:57 +0100	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <abbc1135-6d32-421a-baea-123a9f761362@collabora.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <dc9773aa-690f-47b5-b60a-a79c1e2dbaf2@linaro.org>

Il 25/01/24 11:32, Krzysztof Kozlowski ha scritto:
> On 24/01/2024 09:48, AngeloGioacchino Del Regno wrote:
>> Il 23/01/24 18:14, Conor Dooley ha scritto:
>>> On Mon, Jan 22, 2024 at 11:32:30AM +0100, AngeloGioacchino Del Regno wrote:
>>>> Il 19/01/24 17:32, Conor Dooley ha scritto:
>>>>> On Fri, Jan 19, 2024 at 10:41:04AM +0100, AngeloGioacchino Del Regno wrote:
>>>>>> This IP has only one interrupt, hence interrupt-names is not necessary
>>>>>> to have.
>>>>>> Since there is no user yet, simply remove interrupt-names.
>>>>>
>>>>> I'm a bit confused chief. Patch 2 in this series removes a user of this
>>>>> property from a driver, so can you explain how this statement is true?
>>>>>
>>>>> Maybe I need to drink a few cans of Monster and revisit this patchset?
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> What I mean with "there is no user" is that there's no device tree with any
>>>> mt6360-tcpc node upstream yet, so there is no meaningful ABI breakage.
>>>> Different story would be if there was a device tree using this already, in
>>>> which case, you can make a required property optional but not remove it.
>>>
>>> Not every devicetree lives within the kernel.. If the driver is using
>>> it, I'm not inclined to agree that it should be removed.
>>
>> I get the point, but as far as I remember, it's not the first time that this
>> kind of change is upstreamed.
>>
>> I'm fine with keeping things as they are but, since my intention is to actually
>> introduce an actual user of this binding upstream, and that actually depends on
>> if this change is accepted or not (as I have to know whether I can omit adding
>> the interrupt-names property or not)....
>>
>> ....may I ask for more feedback/opinions from Rob and/or Krzk?
> 
> Driver is the user and this is an old binding (released!), thus there
> can be out-of-kernel users already.
> 
> Minor cleanup is not really a reason to affect ABI. You could deprecate
> it, though. Driver change is fine.
> 

Thanks for the clarification. If USB maintainers want to take the driver part only
without me resending this, I'd appreciate that.

The interrupt-names is not a required property in this binding anyway... :-)

Thanks again,
Angelo