From: Thomas Petazzoni <thomas.petazzoni-wi1+55ScJUtKEb57/3fJTNBPR1lH4CV8@public.gmane.org> To: Jason Cooper <jason-NLaQJdtUoK4Be96aLqz0jA@public.gmane.org> Cc: Arnd Bergmann <arnd-r2nGTMty4D4@public.gmane.org>, Olof Johansson <olof-nZhT3qVonbNeoWH0uzbU5w@public.gmane.org>, arm-DgEjT+Ai2ygdnm+yROfE0A@public.gmane.org, Marc Zyngier <marc.zyngier-5wv7dgnIgG8@public.gmane.org>, devicetree-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org, Thomas Gleixner <tglx-hfZtesqFncYOwBW4kG4KsQ@public.gmane.org>, Linux ARM Kernel <linux-arm-kernel-IAPFreCvJWM7uuMidbF8XUB+6BGkLq7r@public.gmane.org> Subject: Re: irqchip heirarchy DT "break" series awareness? Date: Tue, 7 Apr 2015 11:59:22 +0200 [thread overview] Message-ID: <20150407115922.5d4c6233@free-electrons.com> (raw) In-Reply-To: <20150406144647.GC7873-fahSIxCzskDQ+YiMSub0/l6hYfS7NtTn@public.gmane.org> Jason, On Mon, 6 Apr 2015 14:46:47 +0000, Jason Cooper wrote: > This causes two problems: > > 1) Upgrade kernel, but not DTB. > > System will boot, and print a big fat warning that > suspend/resume will not work until the DTB is upgraded. > > 2) Upgrade DTB, but not kernel. > > System will fail to boot. (2) has never been something that has ever planned of being guaranteed, as far as I know. Only (1) is the supposed consequence of DT ABI stability, but definitely not (2), so I'm unsure why you even mention (2). > In light of Thomas Petazonni's well-researched talk at ELC: > > "The Device Tree as a stable ABI: a fairy tale?" > http://events.linuxfoundation.org/sites/events/files/slides/petazzoni-dt-as-stable-abi-fairy-tale.pdf > > I'm confident that #2 won't be an issue. Distro's and OEMs seem to have > worked around the instability by keeping the dtb tied to the kernel > version. I'm glad you raised my slides as an argument in a DT ABI stability discussion :-) However, my slides are definitely not about #2 (which as said earlier, was never planned to be something we should worry about), but really about #1. But the point of the slides stand: even for a piece of hardware as well-documented as the GIC, as widely used as the GIC, with as many bright and smart engineers looking into it, the community has not been able to put out a DT binding that can be kept stable. How can we expect such a DT binding stability to occur for undocumented hardware, or SoC-specific hardware blocks that are definitely a lot less used than the GIC ? Best regards, Thomas Petazzoni -- Thomas Petazzoni, CTO, Free Electrons Embedded Linux, Kernel and Android engineering http://free-electrons.com -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe devicetree" in the body of a message to majordomo-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
WARNING: multiple messages have this Message-ID (diff)
From: thomas.petazzoni@free-electrons.com (Thomas Petazzoni) To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org Subject: irqchip heirarchy DT "break" series awareness? Date: Tue, 7 Apr 2015 11:59:22 +0200 [thread overview] Message-ID: <20150407115922.5d4c6233@free-electrons.com> (raw) In-Reply-To: <20150406144647.GC7873@io.lakedaemon.net> Jason, On Mon, 6 Apr 2015 14:46:47 +0000, Jason Cooper wrote: > This causes two problems: > > 1) Upgrade kernel, but not DTB. > > System will boot, and print a big fat warning that > suspend/resume will not work until the DTB is upgraded. > > 2) Upgrade DTB, but not kernel. > > System will fail to boot. (2) has never been something that has ever planned of being guaranteed, as far as I know. Only (1) is the supposed consequence of DT ABI stability, but definitely not (2), so I'm unsure why you even mention (2). > In light of Thomas Petazonni's well-researched talk at ELC: > > "The Device Tree as a stable ABI: a fairy tale?" > http://events.linuxfoundation.org/sites/events/files/slides/petazzoni-dt-as-stable-abi-fairy-tale.pdf > > I'm confident that #2 won't be an issue. Distro's and OEMs seem to have > worked around the instability by keeping the dtb tied to the kernel > version. I'm glad you raised my slides as an argument in a DT ABI stability discussion :-) However, my slides are definitely not about #2 (which as said earlier, was never planned to be something we should worry about), but really about #1. But the point of the slides stand: even for a piece of hardware as well-documented as the GIC, as widely used as the GIC, with as many bright and smart engineers looking into it, the community has not been able to put out a DT binding that can be kept stable. How can we expect such a DT binding stability to occur for undocumented hardware, or SoC-specific hardware blocks that are definitely a lot less used than the GIC ? Best regards, Thomas Petazzoni -- Thomas Petazzoni, CTO, Free Electrons Embedded Linux, Kernel and Android engineering http://free-electrons.com
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2015-04-07 9:59 UTC|newest] Thread overview: 14+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top 2015-04-06 14:46 irqchip heirarchy DT "break" series awareness? Jason Cooper 2015-04-06 14:46 ` Jason Cooper [not found] ` <20150406144647.GC7873-fahSIxCzskDQ+YiMSub0/l6hYfS7NtTn@public.gmane.org> 2015-04-07 9:59 ` Thomas Petazzoni [this message] 2015-04-07 9:59 ` Thomas Petazzoni [not found] ` <20150407115922.5d4c6233-wi1+55ScJUtKEb57/3fJTNBPR1lH4CV8@public.gmane.org> 2015-04-07 10:21 ` Marc Zyngier 2015-04-07 10:21 ` Marc Zyngier [not found] ` <5523AFAF.6040000-5wv7dgnIgG8@public.gmane.org> 2015-04-07 13:06 ` Jason Cooper 2015-04-07 13:06 ` Jason Cooper 2015-04-07 13:37 ` Mark Rutland 2015-04-07 13:37 ` Mark Rutland 2015-04-07 12:40 ` Jason Cooper 2015-04-07 12:40 ` Jason Cooper [not found] ` <20150407124016.GD7873-fahSIxCzskDQ+YiMSub0/l6hYfS7NtTn@public.gmane.org> 2015-04-07 12:49 ` Thomas Petazzoni 2015-04-07 12:49 ` Thomas Petazzoni
Reply instructions: You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email using any one of the following methods: * Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client, and reply-to-all from there: mbox Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style * Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to switches of git-send-email(1): git send-email \ --in-reply-to=20150407115922.5d4c6233@free-electrons.com \ --to=thomas.petazzoni-wi1+55scjutkeb57/3fjtnbpr1lh4cv8@public.gmane.org \ --cc=arm-DgEjT+Ai2ygdnm+yROfE0A@public.gmane.org \ --cc=arnd-r2nGTMty4D4@public.gmane.org \ --cc=devicetree-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org \ --cc=jason-NLaQJdtUoK4Be96aLqz0jA@public.gmane.org \ --cc=linux-arm-kernel-IAPFreCvJWM7uuMidbF8XUB+6BGkLq7r@public.gmane.org \ --cc=marc.zyngier-5wv7dgnIgG8@public.gmane.org \ --cc=olof-nZhT3qVonbNeoWH0uzbU5w@public.gmane.org \ --cc=tglx-hfZtesqFncYOwBW4kG4KsQ@public.gmane.org \ /path/to/YOUR_REPLY https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html * If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header via mailto: links, try the mailto: linkBe sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line before the message body.
This is an external index of several public inboxes, see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror all data and code used by this external index.