From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-10.5 required=3.0 tests=BAYES_00,DKIMWL_WL_HIGH, DKIM_SIGNED,DKIM_VALID,HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS,MAILING_LIST_MULTI, MENTIONS_GIT_HOSTING,SPF_HELO_NONE,SPF_PASS,URIBL_BLOCKED,USER_AGENT_SANE_1 autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.0 Received: from mail.kernel.org (mail.kernel.org [198.145.29.99]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id DFA35C433DB for ; Mon, 25 Jan 2021 14:18:55 +0000 (UTC) Received: from merlin.infradead.org (merlin.infradead.org [205.233.59.134]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 5D6EE22D04 for ; Mon, 25 Jan 2021 14:18:55 +0000 (UTC) DMARC-Filter: OpenDMARC Filter v1.3.2 mail.kernel.org 5D6EE22D04 Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; dmarc=fail (p=quarantine dis=none) header.from=ti.com Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; spf=none smtp.mailfrom=linux-arm-kernel-bounces+linux-arm-kernel=archiver.kernel.org@lists.infradead.org DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; q=dns/txt; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=lists.infradead.org; s=merlin.20170209; h=Sender:Content-Transfer-Encoding: Content-Type:Cc:List-Subscribe:List-Help:List-Post:List-Archive: List-Unsubscribe:List-Id:In-Reply-To:MIME-Version:References:Message-ID: Subject:To:From:Date:Reply-To:Content-ID:Content-Description:Resent-Date: Resent-From:Resent-Sender:Resent-To:Resent-Cc:Resent-Message-ID:List-Owner; bh=ilGBpuUX027gzF6W9LwHav0UcS5C40rBkaAt4qr1N6k=; b=JMHOF12UwhIM9RMVL/msnNaMi GqLxQkQxuMZ9Qt5DISYlgY35Eb5OoCdUT71Hl2OIdJBBMCbvO4Wfb7J9zt3j0Oi3u7WMBePPmr1MP +o8Kupz2sNetRsX70A2snr/Yly+T59Xks2uakhpuRrCWRwzm6gE6eAnK6hVisjyp0gDgA+EPoWlG5 xnevs2AII/WsGRYYM2OZ9dX8CHC/uDaFo3huxzNUddzfSrTgwjE+CxU0+TUf+UQI2dVeETWDB51yu Og4mWd/gLzTXLh7R/T9doN+9eFNWGltGda2vqKBXRaMNWaMmun6WwQqeX9opAl2RVshkeN6TD10Kh fLR+KTS3g==; Received: from localhost ([::1] helo=merlin.infradead.org) by merlin.infradead.org with esmtp (Exim 4.92.3 #3 (Red Hat Linux)) id 1l42fm-0003Ug-8J; Mon, 25 Jan 2021 14:16:54 +0000 Received: from fllv0016.ext.ti.com ([198.47.19.142]) by merlin.infradead.org with esmtps (Exim 4.92.3 #3 (Red Hat Linux)) id 1l42fg-0003SZ-6L for linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org; Mon, 25 Jan 2021 14:16:52 +0000 Received: from lelv0265.itg.ti.com ([10.180.67.224]) by fllv0016.ext.ti.com (8.15.2/8.15.2) with ESMTP id 10PEGhDk034133; Mon, 25 Jan 2021 08:16:43 -0600 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=ti.com; s=ti-com-17Q1; t=1611584203; bh=CYWhOZWr5wAHp5EqGRhjm0eM3W1YoDR6+imrUGGupl0=; h=Date:From:To:CC:Subject:References:In-Reply-To; b=Av7RqK6aCZHy+4vEUmbk9Pbb5Zevq8MgyMwCFoymq4AMeoqXLm37bB7etJvaBOudf W2j//1d+FsTWE7UvjUTG5ocxHXy6ba0me6IL5P/Tq9cdX++MuAI2colzrBnsEWfKJS usXDZF+CuZMSARz/p7yNvOxFuBOR5FNs6s4C3brY= Received: from DFLE115.ent.ti.com (dfle115.ent.ti.com [10.64.6.36]) by lelv0265.itg.ti.com (8.15.2/8.15.2) with ESMTPS id 10PEGhcD095343 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=FAIL); Mon, 25 Jan 2021 08:16:43 -0600 Received: from DFLE108.ent.ti.com (10.64.6.29) by DFLE115.ent.ti.com (10.64.6.36) with Microsoft SMTP Server (version=TLS1_2, cipher=TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_128_CBC_SHA256_P256) id 15.1.1979.3; Mon, 25 Jan 2021 08:16:42 -0600 Received: from fllv0040.itg.ti.com (10.64.41.20) by DFLE108.ent.ti.com (10.64.6.29) with Microsoft SMTP Server (version=TLS1_2, cipher=TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_128_CBC_SHA256_P256) id 15.1.1979.3 via Frontend Transport; Mon, 25 Jan 2021 08:16:43 -0600 Received: from localhost (ileax41-snat.itg.ti.com [10.172.224.153]) by fllv0040.itg.ti.com (8.15.2/8.15.2) with ESMTP id 10PEGg3M072123; Mon, 25 Jan 2021 08:16:42 -0600 Date: Mon, 25 Jan 2021 08:16:42 -0600 From: Nishanth Menon To: Tony Lindgren Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 3/5] arm64: dts: ti: Add support for AM642 SoC Message-ID: <20210125141642.4yybjnklk3qsqjdy@steersman> References: <20210120202532.9011-1-d-gerlach@ti.com> <20210120202532.9011-4-d-gerlach@ti.com> <197af185-d2ea-3c76-d0bf-714485f8f195@ti.com> <20210121174639.jqbvem6b4ozd3six@sterling> <4ee6f005-2eee-42b2-b573-e10602839e1b@ti.com> <20210121183909.pwpboiptqbof2dfu@squint> <2b35fb8b-0477-f66d-bcbd-ad640664a888@ti.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: User-Agent: NeoMutt/20171215 X-EXCLAIMER-MD-CONFIG: e1e8a2fd-e40a-4ac6-ac9b-f7e9cc9ee180 X-CRM114-Version: 20100106-BlameMichelson ( TRE 0.8.0 (BSD) ) MR-646709E3 X-CRM114-CacheID: sfid-20210125_091648_884208_8E37545C X-CRM114-Status: GOOD ( 47.36 ) X-BeenThere: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Cc: Arnd Bergmann , Vignesh Raghavendra , Arnd Bergmann , DTML , Lokesh Vutla , Dave Gerlach , Sekhar Nori , Kishon Vijay Abraham , Rob Herring , Aswath Govindraju , Linux ARM Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: "linux-arm-kernel" Errors-To: linux-arm-kernel-bounces+linux-arm-kernel=archiver.kernel.org@lists.infradead.org Arnd, Tony, On 15:00-20210122, Tony Lindgren wrote: > * Arnd Bergmann [210122 11:24]: > > On Thu, Jan 21, 2021 at 8:57 PM Suman Anna wrote: > > > On 1/21/21 12:39 PM, Nishanth Menon wrote: > > > > On 12:13-20210121, Suman Anna wrote: > > > >> > > > >> Hmm, this is kinda counter-intuitive. When I see a dts node, I am expecting the > > > > > > > > What is counter intutive about a -next branch be tested against > > > > linux-next tree? > > > > > > The -next process is well understood. FWIW, you are not sending your PR against > > > -next branch, but against primarily a -rc1 or -rc2 baseline. > > > > > > As a developer, when I am submitting patches, I am making sure that things are > > > functional against the baseline you use. For example, when I split functionality > > > into a driver portions and dts portions, I need to make sure both those > > > individual pieces boot fine and do not cause regressions, even though for the > > > final functionality, you need both. > > > > > > > > > > > > Now, if you want to launch a product with my -next branch - go ahead, I > > > > don't intent it for current kernel version - you are on your own. > > > > > > > > If there is a real risk of upstream next-breaking - speakup with an > > > > real example - All I care about is keeping upstream functional and > > > > useable. > > > > > > This is all moot when your own tree doesn't boot properly. In this case, you are > > > adding MMC nodes, but yet for a boot test, you are saying use linux-next for the > > > nodes that were added or you need additional driver patches (which is not how > > > maintainer-level trees are verified). > > > > > > Arnd, > > > Can you please guide us here as to what is expected in general, given that the > > > pull-request from Nishanth goes through you, and if there is some pre-existing > > > norms around this? > > > > There are two very different cases to consider, and I'm not sure which one > > we have here: > > > > - When submitting any changes to a working platform, each patch on > > a branch that gets merged needs to work incrementally, e.g. a device > > tree change merged through the soc tree must never stop a platform > > from booting without a patch that gets merged through another branch > > in the same merge window, or vice versa. > > As an extension of this, I would actually appreciate if we never do > > incompatible binding changes at all. If a driver patch enables a new > > binding for already supported hardware, a second patch changes > > the dts file to use the new binding, and a third patch removes the > > original binding, this could still be done without regressions over > > multiple merge windows, but it breaks the assumption that a new > > kernel can boot with an old dtb (or vice versa). This second one > > is a softer requirement, and we can make exceptions for particularly > > good reasons, but please explain those in the patch description and > > discuss with upstream maintainers before submitting patches that do > > this. > > > > - For a newly added hardware support, having a runtime dependency > > on another branch is not a problem, we do that all the time: Adding > > a device node for an existing board (or a new board) and the driver > > code in another branch is not a regression because each branch > > only has incremental changes that improve hardware support, and > > it will work as soon as both are merged. > > You raised the point about device bindings, which is best addressed > > by having one commit that adds the (reviewed) binding document > > first, and then have the driver branch and the dts branch based on > > the same commit. > > > > I hope that clarifies the case you are interested in, let me know if I > > missed something for the specific case at hand. > > Hmm and additionally few more mostly obvious things that have helped > quite a bit: > > - Each commit in each topic branch should compile and boot so git > bisect works > > - Each topic branch should be ideally based on -rc1 to leave out > dependencies to other branches > > - Aiming for a working and usable -rc1 is worth the effort in case > git bisect is needed for any top branches based on it :) Otherwise > you'll be wasting the -rc cycle chasing regressions.. Thank you both for your valuable insight and direction. much appreciated. *) for every patch that is integrated - I already insist on bisectability, no warnings with W=2 , dtbs_check .... Including putting additional tooling[1] in place for folks to use - which goes and tests sparse, coccinelle etc.. The team has been pretty deligent in making sure things are clean. *) We also insist on testing with linux-next to maintain rc1 functionality *) I also maintain the minimal boot requirements equivalent to kernelci (example:[2]) for my -next branch as well. Yes, this series introduces 0 regression, new nodes are being added and the thing I missed for this window, which is insisting on getting immutable tags from subsystem maintainers for dt-bindings patches they have picked up, will be rectified in the future. For this window, for the last time, I am going to depend a bit on the later merge of arm-soc. Thanks for the clarifications, once again. [1] https://github.com/nmenon/kernel_patch_verify [2] https://storage.kernelci.org/stable/linux-4.14.y/v4.14.217/arm/omap2plus_defconfig/gcc-8/lab-cip/baseline-beaglebone-black.txt -- Regards, Nishanth Menon Key (0xDDB5849D1736249D) / Fingerprint: F8A2 8693 54EB 8232 17A3 1A34 DDB5 849D 1736 249D _______________________________________________ linux-arm-kernel mailing list linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-arm-kernel