From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1751635AbeBWQQn (ORCPT ); Fri, 23 Feb 2018 11:16:43 -0500 Received: from mail-qt0-f195.google.com ([209.85.216.195]:46525 "EHLO mail-qt0-f195.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751514AbeBWQQl (ORCPT ); Fri, 23 Feb 2018 11:16:41 -0500 X-Google-Smtp-Source: AG47ELu1f76oxIJW8r58CT9kXjX6SiMN4O1bV2HZzGi07sOktZ/PZNft7LqTjrfDPkdwL6OuHvFOxU86eYtPKj2ct7s= MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <7ba335af-3fc5-2afd-8c52-03dca5eba9a4@rock-chips.com> References: <20180223064138.18401-1-jh80.chung@samsung.com> <7ba335af-3fc5-2afd-8c52-03dca5eba9a4@rock-chips.com> From: Andy Shevchenko Date: Fri, 23 Feb 2018 18:16:39 +0200 Message-ID: Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/6] mmc: dw_mmc: remove the deprecated "clock-freq-min-max" property To: Shawn Lin Cc: Jaehoon Chung , linux-mmc@vger.kernel.org, devicetree , Linux Kernel Mailing List , Ulf Hansson , Rob Herring , Mark Rutland , Joachim Eastwood , dinguyen@kernel.org, Will Deacon , "xuwei (O)" Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Fri, Feb 23, 2018 at 4:19 PM, Shawn Lin wrote: > On 2018/2/23 21:27, Andy Shevchenko wrote: >> On Fri, Feb 23, 2018 at 8:41 AM, Jaehoon Chung >> wrote: >>> >>> 'clock-freq-min-max' property had already deprecated. >>> Remove the 'clock-freq-min-max' property that is kept to maintain >>> the compatibility. >> >> >> Removing a property without telling the user what to expect is a bad >> idea and ABI breakage. >> > > What's the general process to remove a property? > > I guess we should do: > 1) deprecate it in the first place and remove it from all upstream DT > 2) wait some long enough days for expecting the stale of all old DTB > containing that property > 3) remove the functionality of the deprecated property from the driver > but still leave some warning there > 4) remove the left warning finally I don't know. Perhaps Rob can shed a light here. But I would really OK with removal of some of such properties from some drivers where it's more burden to keep them. > And for the ABI breakage, we should add something in Documentation/ABI > /obsolete or Documentation/ABI/removed ? -- With Best Regards, Andy Shevchenko