* [GIT PULL] ARM: SoC fixes (and a cross-arch dt-include fix) @ 2017-05-19 19:34 Olof Johansson 2017-05-22 11:44 ` Linus Walleij 0 siblings, 1 reply; 9+ messages in thread From: Olof Johansson @ 2017-05-19 19:34 UTC (permalink / raw) To: torvalds; +Cc: olof, arm, linux-arch, linux-kernel, linux-arm-kernel The following changes since commit 2ea659a9ef488125eb46da6eb571de5eae5c43f6: Linux 4.12-rc1 (2017-05-13 13:19:49 -0700) are available in the git repository at: git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/arm/arm-soc.git tags/armsoc-fixes for you to fetch changes up to 6bf1c2d26716dcd483699cc62474e49d164c5563: arm64: dts: rockchip: fix include reference (2017-05-19 14:12:00 +0200) ---------------------------------------------------------------- ARM: SoC fixes (and a cross-arch dt-include fix) We had a small batch of fixes before -rc1, but here is a larger one. It contains a backmerge of 4.12-rc1 since some of the downstream branches we merge had that as base; at the same time we already had merged contents before -rc1 and rebase wasn't the right solution. A mix of random smaller fixes and a few things worth pointing out: - We've started telling people to avoid cross-tree shared branches if all they're doing is picking up one or two DT-used constants from a shared include file, and instead to use the numeric values on first submission. Follow-up moving over to symbolic names are sent in right after -rc1, i.e. here. It's only a few minor patches of this type. - Linus Walleij and others are resurrecting the 'Gemini' platform, and wanted a cut-down platform-specific defconfig for it. So I picked that up for them. - Rob Herring ran 'savedefconfig' on arm64, it's a bit churny but it helps people to prepare patches since it's a pain when defconfig and current savedefconfig contents differs too much. - Devicetree additions for some pinctrl drivers for Armada that were merged this window. I'd have preferred to see those earlier but it's not a huge deail. The biggest change worth pointing out though since it's touching other parts of the tree: We added prefixes to be used when cross-including DT contents between arm64 and arm, allowing someone to #include <arm/foo.dtsi> from arm64, and likewise. As part of that, we needed arm/foo.dtsi to work on arm as well. The way I suggested this to Heiko resulted in a recursive symlink. Instead, I've now moved it out of arch/*/boot/dts/include, into a shared location under scripts/dtc. While I was at it, I consolidated so all architectures now behave the same way in this manner. Rob Herring (DT maintainer) has acked it. I cc:d most other arch maintainers but nobody seems to care much; it doesn't really affect them since functionality is unchanged for them by default. ---------------------------------------------------------------- Adam Ford (1): ARM: dts: LogicPD Torpedo: Fix camera pin mux Andreas Kemnade (1): ARM: dts: gta04: fix polarity of clocks for mcbsp4 Arnd Bergmann (11): ARM: omap2+: make omap4_get_cpu1_ns_pa_addr declaration usable Merge tag 'v4.11-next-fixes' of https://github.com/mbgg/linux-mediatek into fixes Merge tag 'renesas-fixes-for-v4.12' of https://git.kernel.org/.../horms/renesas into fixes Merge tag 'mvebu-dt64-4.12-3' of git://git.infradead.org/linux-mvebu into fixes Merge tag 'mvebu-arm64-4.12-1' of git://git.infradead.org/linux-mvebu into fixes Merge branch 'tee/initial-merge' into fixes tee: add ARM_SMCCC dependency soc: imx: add PM dependency for IMX7_PM_DOMAINS ARM: remove duplicate 'const' annotations' firmware: ti_sci: fix strncat length check arm64: dts: rockchip: fix include reference Baruch Siach (4): ARM: dts: bcm2835: fix uart0 pinctrl node names ARM: dts: bcm2835: fix i2c0 pins ARM: dts: bcm2835: fix uart0/uart1 pins ARM: dts: bcm2835: add index to the ethernet alias Fabio Estevam (1): ARM: dts: imx53-qsrb: Pulldown PMIC IRQ pin Florian Fainelli (2): Merge tag 'bcm2835-dt-next-2017-03-30' into devicetree/fixes soc: bcm: brcmstb: Correctly match 7435 SoC Geert Uytterhoeven (1): soc: renesas: Provide dummy rcar_rst_read_mode_pins() for compile-testing Gregory CLEMENT (3): arm64: marvell: enable the Armada 37xx pinctrl driver ARM64: dts: marvell: Add pinctrl nodes for Armada 3700 ARM64: dts: marvell: armada37xx: add pinctrl definition Hans Verkuil (1): ARM: dts: omap4: enable CEC pin for Pandaboard A4 and ES John Crispin (1): arm: dts: mt7623: add clock-frequency to the a7 timer node to mt7623.dtsi Keerthy (1): ARM: dts: dra7: Add power hold and power controller properties to palmas Leonard Crestez (1): ARM: dts: imx6sx-sdb: Remove OPP override Linus Walleij (1): ARM: configs: add a gemini defconfig Olof Johansson (6): Merge tag 'v4.12-rc1' into fixes devicetree: Move include prefixes from arch to separate directory Merge tag 'arm-soc/for-4.12/devicetree-fixes' of http://github.com/Broadcom/stblinux into fixes Merge tag 'arm-soc/for-4.12/drivers-fixes' of http://github.com/Broadcom/stblinux into fixes Merge tag 'imx-fixes-4.12' of git://git.kernel.org/.../shawnguo/linux into fixes Merge tag 'omap-for-v4.12/fixes-v2-signed' of git://git.kernel.org/.../tmlind/linux-omap into fixes Ravikumar Kattekola (1): ARM: dts: dra7: Reduce cpu thermal shutdown temperature Rob Herring (2): arm64: defconfig: sync with savedefconfig arm64: defconfig: enable options needed for QCom DB410c board Tony Lindgren (1): memory: omap-gpmc: Fix debug output for access width yong mao (1): ARM64: dts: mediatek: configure some fixed mmc parameters arch/arm/boot/dts/bcm283x-rpi-smsc9512.dtsi | 2 +- arch/arm/boot/dts/bcm283x-rpi-smsc9514.dtsi | 2 +- arch/arm/boot/dts/bcm283x.dtsi | 22 +++-- arch/arm/boot/dts/dra7-evm.dts | 2 + arch/arm/boot/dts/dra7.dtsi | 4 + arch/arm/boot/dts/imx53-qsrb.dts | 2 +- arch/arm/boot/dts/imx6sx-sdb.dts | 17 ---- arch/arm/boot/dts/include/arm | 1 - arch/arm/boot/dts/include/arm64 | 1 - arch/arm/boot/dts/include/dt-bindings | 1 - arch/arm/boot/dts/logicpd-torpedo-37xx-devkit.dts | 6 +- arch/arm/boot/dts/mt7623.dtsi | 2 + arch/arm/boot/dts/omap3-gta04.dtsi | 3 +- arch/arm/boot/dts/omap4-panda-a4.dts | 2 +- arch/arm/boot/dts/omap4-panda-es.dts | 2 +- arch/arm/configs/gemini_defconfig | 68 ++++++++++++++ arch/arm/mach-at91/pm.c | 2 +- arch/arm/mach-bcm/bcm_kona_smc.c | 2 +- arch/arm/mach-cns3xxx/core.c | 2 +- arch/arm/mach-omap2/common.h | 3 +- arch/arm/mach-omap2/omap-mpuss-lowpower.c | 10 +- arch/arm/mach-omap2/omap-smp.c | 11 ++- arch/arm/mach-omap2/prm_common.c | 2 +- arch/arm/mach-omap2/vc.c | 2 +- arch/arm/mach-spear/time.c | 2 +- arch/arm64/Kconfig.platforms | 5 + arch/arm64/boot/dts/include/arm | 1 - arch/arm64/boot/dts/include/arm64 | 1 - arch/arm64/boot/dts/include/dt-bindings | 1 - arch/arm64/boot/dts/marvell/armada-3720-db.dts | 8 ++ arch/arm64/boot/dts/marvell/armada-37xx.dtsi | 73 ++++++++++++++- arch/arm64/boot/dts/mediatek/mt8173-evb.dts | 3 + arch/arm64/boot/dts/rockchip/rk3399-gru-kevin.dts | 2 +- arch/arm64/configs/defconfig | 106 ++++++++++------------ arch/cris/boot/dts/include/dt-bindings | 1 - arch/metag/boot/dts/include/dt-bindings | 1 - arch/mips/boot/dts/include/dt-bindings | 1 - arch/powerpc/boot/dts/include/dt-bindings | 1 - drivers/firmware/ti_sci.c | 3 +- drivers/memory/omap-gpmc.c | 2 +- drivers/soc/bcm/brcmstb/common.c | 2 +- drivers/soc/imx/Kconfig | 3 +- drivers/tee/Kconfig | 1 + include/linux/soc/renesas/rcar-rst.h | 5 + scripts/Makefile.lib | 2 +- scripts/dtc/include-prefixes/arc | 1 + scripts/dtc/include-prefixes/arm | 1 + scripts/dtc/include-prefixes/arm64 | 1 + scripts/dtc/include-prefixes/c6x | 1 + scripts/dtc/include-prefixes/cris | 1 + scripts/dtc/include-prefixes/dt-bindings | 1 + scripts/dtc/include-prefixes/h8300 | 1 + scripts/dtc/include-prefixes/metag | 1 + scripts/dtc/include-prefixes/microblaze | 1 + scripts/dtc/include-prefixes/mips | 1 + scripts/dtc/include-prefixes/nios2 | 1 + scripts/dtc/include-prefixes/openrisc | 1 + scripts/dtc/include-prefixes/powerpc | 1 + scripts/dtc/include-prefixes/sh | 1 + scripts/dtc/include-prefixes/xtensa | 1 + 60 files changed, 281 insertions(+), 129 deletions(-) delete mode 120000 arch/arm/boot/dts/include/arm delete mode 120000 arch/arm/boot/dts/include/arm64 delete mode 120000 arch/arm/boot/dts/include/dt-bindings create mode 100644 arch/arm/configs/gemini_defconfig delete mode 120000 arch/arm64/boot/dts/include/arm delete mode 120000 arch/arm64/boot/dts/include/arm64 delete mode 120000 arch/arm64/boot/dts/include/dt-bindings delete mode 120000 arch/cris/boot/dts/include/dt-bindings delete mode 120000 arch/metag/boot/dts/include/dt-bindings delete mode 120000 arch/mips/boot/dts/include/dt-bindings delete mode 120000 arch/powerpc/boot/dts/include/dt-bindings create mode 120000 scripts/dtc/include-prefixes/arc create mode 120000 scripts/dtc/include-prefixes/arm create mode 120000 scripts/dtc/include-prefixes/arm64 create mode 120000 scripts/dtc/include-prefixes/c6x create mode 120000 scripts/dtc/include-prefixes/cris create mode 120000 scripts/dtc/include-prefixes/dt-bindings create mode 120000 scripts/dtc/include-prefixes/h8300 create mode 120000 scripts/dtc/include-prefixes/metag create mode 120000 scripts/dtc/include-prefixes/microblaze create mode 120000 scripts/dtc/include-prefixes/mips create mode 120000 scripts/dtc/include-prefixes/nios2 create mode 120000 scripts/dtc/include-prefixes/openrisc create mode 120000 scripts/dtc/include-prefixes/powerpc create mode 120000 scripts/dtc/include-prefixes/sh create mode 120000 scripts/dtc/include-prefixes/xtensa ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 9+ messages in thread
* Re: [GIT PULL] ARM: SoC fixes (and a cross-arch dt-include fix) 2017-05-19 19:34 [GIT PULL] ARM: SoC fixes (and a cross-arch dt-include fix) Olof Johansson @ 2017-05-22 11:44 ` Linus Walleij 2017-05-22 15:11 ` Olof Johansson 0 siblings, 1 reply; 9+ messages in thread From: Linus Walleij @ 2017-05-22 11:44 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Olof Johansson, Rob Herring Cc: Linus Torvalds, linux-arch, arm, linux-kernel, linux-arm-kernel On Fri, May 19, 2017 at 9:34 PM, Olof Johansson <olof@lixom.net> wrote: > - We've started telling people to avoid cross-tree shared branches if all > they're doing is picking up one or two DT-used constants from a > shared include file, and instead to use the numeric values on first > submission. Follow-up moving over to symbolic names are sent in right > after -rc1, i.e. here. It's only a few minor patches of this type. OK it seems like a reasonable process. It's not like I can think about anything better. I was more opting for doing things this way: - Create bindings and <dt-bindings/foo/bar.h> merge it into the foo subsystem. - Merge driver into drivers/foo/bar.c that use <dt-bindings/foo/bar.h> - Submit DTS patch to ARM SoC (or whetever) using only numerical values. - After the merge window, follow up with a patch replacing the numerical constants with #defines from <dt-bindings/foo/bar.h> An alternative would obviously be to wait for the next merge window after merging the driver patch but I guess people are too impatient to do that (including me). We discussed cross-tree dependencies a bit on ksummit-discuss but this solution was not mentioned back then. Yours, Linus Walleij ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 9+ messages in thread
* Re: [GIT PULL] ARM: SoC fixes (and a cross-arch dt-include fix) 2017-05-22 11:44 ` Linus Walleij @ 2017-05-22 15:11 ` Olof Johansson 2017-05-23 8:27 ` [Ksummit-discuss] " Daniel Vetter 2017-05-23 9:49 ` Geert Uytterhoeven 0 siblings, 2 replies; 9+ messages in thread From: Olof Johansson @ 2017-05-22 15:11 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Linus Walleij Cc: Rob Herring, Linus Torvalds, linux-arch, arm, linux-kernel, linux-arm-kernel, ksummit-discuss [adding ksummit-discuss] On Mon, May 22, 2017 at 4:44 AM, Linus Walleij <linus.walleij@linaro.org> wrote: > On Fri, May 19, 2017 at 9:34 PM, Olof Johansson <olof@lixom.net> wrote: > >> - We've started telling people to avoid cross-tree shared branches if all >> they're doing is picking up one or two DT-used constants from a >> shared include file, and instead to use the numeric values on first >> submission. Follow-up moving over to symbolic names are sent in right >> after -rc1, i.e. here. It's only a few minor patches of this type. > > OK it seems like a reasonable process. > > It's not like I can think about anything better. > > I was more opting for doing things this way: > > - Create bindings and <dt-bindings/foo/bar.h> merge it into the > foo subsystem. > > - Merge driver into drivers/foo/bar.c that use <dt-bindings/foo/bar.h> > > - Submit DTS patch to ARM SoC (or whetever) using only numerical > values. > > - After the merge window, follow up with a patch replacing the > numerical constants with #defines from <dt-bindings/foo/bar.h> You're describing exactly what we've been pushing people towards. If it's just a few simple references it's not significantly more awkward, and decouples merges and removes need for stable branches. Essentially we've become slightly more lax in what we're willing to consider _right after_ -rc1 to include these tweaks (and often patches to turn on new drivers in defconfigs). If the amount of contents grows too large we might need to tweak things further, maybe with something pre-rc1 but that's more awkward. > An alternative would obviously be to wait for the next merge window > after merging the driver patch but I guess people are too impatient > to do that (including me). Yeah, asking people to spread out across releases would remove dependencies a lot, but it would also slow down progress and frustrate a lot of contributors so we don't do that. > We discussed cross-tree dependencies a bit on ksummit-discuss > but this solution was not mentioned back then. I thought it was, but I wasn't fully engaged in the discussion. We've also only started this over the last release or two so it's early to tell just how well it'll work in reality. Cc:ing the list. -Olof ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 9+ messages in thread
* Re: [Ksummit-discuss] [GIT PULL] ARM: SoC fixes (and a cross-arch dt-include fix) 2017-05-22 15:11 ` Olof Johansson @ 2017-05-23 8:27 ` Daniel Vetter 2017-05-23 9:49 ` Geert Uytterhoeven 1 sibling, 0 replies; 9+ messages in thread From: Daniel Vetter @ 2017-05-23 8:27 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Olof Johansson Cc: Linus Walleij, linux-arch, arm, ksummit-discuss, linux-kernel, Rob Herring, linux-arm-kernel On Mon, May 22, 2017 at 5:11 PM, Olof Johansson <olof@lixom.net> wrote: > [adding ksummit-discuss] > > On Mon, May 22, 2017 at 4:44 AM, Linus Walleij <linus.walleij@linaro.org> wrote: >> On Fri, May 19, 2017 at 9:34 PM, Olof Johansson <olof@lixom.net> wrote: >> >>> - We've started telling people to avoid cross-tree shared branches if all >>> they're doing is picking up one or two DT-used constants from a >>> shared include file, and instead to use the numeric values on first >>> submission. Follow-up moving over to symbolic names are sent in right >>> after -rc1, i.e. here. It's only a few minor patches of this type. >> >> OK it seems like a reasonable process. >> >> It's not like I can think about anything better. >> >> I was more opting for doing things this way: >> >> - Create bindings and <dt-bindings/foo/bar.h> merge it into the >> foo subsystem. >> >> - Merge driver into drivers/foo/bar.c that use <dt-bindings/foo/bar.h> >> >> - Submit DTS patch to ARM SoC (or whetever) using only numerical >> values. >> >> - After the merge window, follow up with a patch replacing the >> numerical constants with #defines from <dt-bindings/foo/bar.h> > > You're describing exactly what we've been pushing people towards. > > If it's just a few simple references it's not significantly more > awkward, and decouples merges and removes need for stable branches. > Essentially we've become slightly more lax in what we're willing to > consider _right after_ -rc1 to include these tweaks (and often patches > to turn on new drivers in defconfigs). > > If the amount of contents grows too large we might need to tweak > things further, maybe with something pre-rc1 but that's more awkward. > >> An alternative would obviously be to wait for the next merge window >> after merging the driver patch but I guess people are too impatient >> to do that (including me). > > Yeah, asking people to spread out across releases would remove > dependencies a lot, but it would also slow down progress and frustrate > a lot of contributors so we don't do that. > >> We discussed cross-tree dependencies a bit on ksummit-discuss >> but this solution was not mentioned back then. > > I thought it was, but I wasn't fully engaged in the discussion. We've > also only started this over the last release or two so it's early to > tell just how well it'll work in reality. Cc:ing the list. Yeah, this sounds like a good step towards improving what I've complained about, while still keeping topic/shared stable branch proliferation under control. -Daniel -- Daniel Vetter Software Engineer, Intel Corporation +41 (0) 79 365 57 48 - http://blog.ffwll.ch ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 9+ messages in thread
* Re: [GIT PULL] ARM: SoC fixes (and a cross-arch dt-include fix) 2017-05-22 15:11 ` Olof Johansson 2017-05-23 8:27 ` [Ksummit-discuss] " Daniel Vetter @ 2017-05-23 9:49 ` Geert Uytterhoeven 2017-05-23 14:17 ` Arnd Bergmann 2017-05-23 16:42 ` Olof Johansson 1 sibling, 2 replies; 9+ messages in thread From: Geert Uytterhoeven @ 2017-05-23 9:49 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Olof Johansson Cc: Linus Walleij, Rob Herring, Linus Torvalds, linux-arch, arm, linux-kernel, linux-arm-kernel, ksummit-discuss Hi Olof, On Mon, May 22, 2017 at 5:11 PM, Olof Johansson <olof@lixom.net> wrote: > On Mon, May 22, 2017 at 4:44 AM, Linus Walleij <linus.walleij@linaro.org> wrote: >> On Fri, May 19, 2017 at 9:34 PM, Olof Johansson <olof@lixom.net> wrote: >>> - We've started telling people to avoid cross-tree shared branches if all >>> they're doing is picking up one or two DT-used constants from a >>> shared include file, and instead to use the numeric values on first >>> submission. Follow-up moving over to symbolic names are sent in right >>> after -rc1, i.e. here. It's only a few minor patches of this type. >> >> OK it seems like a reasonable process. >> >> It's not like I can think about anything better. >> >> I was more opting for doing things this way: >> >> - Create bindings and <dt-bindings/foo/bar.h> merge it into the >> foo subsystem. >> >> - Merge driver into drivers/foo/bar.c that use <dt-bindings/foo/bar.h> >> >> - Submit DTS patch to ARM SoC (or whetever) using only numerical >> values. >> >> - After the merge window, follow up with a patch replacing the >> numerical constants with #defines from <dt-bindings/foo/bar.h> > > You're describing exactly what we've been pushing people towards. > > If it's just a few simple references it's not significantly more > awkward, and decouples merges and removes need for stable branches. > Essentially we've become slightly more lax in what we're willing to > consider _right after_ -rc1 to include these tweaks (and often patches > to turn on new drivers in defconfigs). > > If the amount of contents grows too large we might need to tweak > things further, maybe with something pre-rc1 but that's more awkward. > >> An alternative would obviously be to wait for the next merge window >> after merging the driver patch but I guess people are too impatient >> to do that (including me). > > Yeah, asking people to spread out across releases would remove > dependencies a lot, but it would also slow down progress and frustrate > a lot of contributors so we don't do that. The above works fine for new support, or for new platforms. There's still support being migrated from platform code to DT, which requires three steps: 1. New DT-aware driver support, 2. DT update to use the new driver support, 3. Clean up platform code after optional DTB backwards compatibility grace period, To make matters worse, 1 may conflict with the existing platform code, and 2 must sometimes not be done before 1. Hence you may need three kernel releases. So we're already planning now what to clean up for v4.15 ;-) Would it be acceptable to do step 2 in the same release, after the driver support has entered in -rc1? I know this is more than just replacing numbers by symbolic values. Thanks! Gr{oetje,eeting}s, Geert -- Geert Uytterhoeven -- There's lots of Linux beyond ia32 -- geert@linux-m68k.org In personal conversations with technical people, I call myself a hacker. But when I'm talking to journalists I just say "programmer" or something like that. -- Linus Torvalds ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 9+ messages in thread
* Re: [GIT PULL] ARM: SoC fixes (and a cross-arch dt-include fix) 2017-05-23 9:49 ` Geert Uytterhoeven @ 2017-05-23 14:17 ` Arnd Bergmann 2017-05-30 9:13 ` Geert Uytterhoeven 2017-05-23 16:42 ` Olof Johansson 1 sibling, 1 reply; 9+ messages in thread From: Arnd Bergmann @ 2017-05-23 14:17 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Geert Uytterhoeven Cc: Olof Johansson, Linus Walleij, Rob Herring, Linus Torvalds, linux-arch, arm, linux-kernel, linux-arm-kernel, ksummit-discuss On Tue, May 23, 2017 at 11:49 AM, Geert Uytterhoeven <geert@linux-m68k.org> wrote: > > On Mon, May 22, 2017 at 5:11 PM, Olof Johansson <olof@lixom.net> wrote: >> On Mon, May 22, 2017 at 4:44 AM, Linus Walleij <linus.walleij@linaro.org> wrote: >>> On Fri, May 19, 2017 at 9:34 PM, Olof Johansson <olof@lixom.net> wrote: >> >> Yeah, asking people to spread out across releases would remove >> dependencies a lot, but it would also slow down progress and frustrate >> a lot of contributors so we don't do that. > > The above works fine for new support, or for new platforms. > > There's still support being migrated from platform code to DT, which > requires three steps: > 1. New DT-aware driver support, > 2. DT update to use the new driver support, > 3. Clean up platform code after optional DTB backwards compatibility > grace period, > To make matters worse, 1 may conflict with the existing platform code, > and 2 must sometimes not be done before 1. Hence you may need three kernel > releases. > So we're already planning now what to clean up for v4.15 ;-) > > Would it be acceptable to do step 2 in the same release, after the driver > support has entered in -rc1? I know this is more than just replacing > numbers by symbolic values. I'd say it really depends on the individual case. Do you have a particular platform in mind? E.g. For some of the more obsolete platforms that Linus Walleij has worked on over time, we have sometimes relaxed the rules about clean bisection and just merged everything in parallel, knowing that nobody else was likely to run that code on a vanilla kernel anyway. Arnd ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 9+ messages in thread
* Re: [GIT PULL] ARM: SoC fixes (and a cross-arch dt-include fix) 2017-05-23 14:17 ` Arnd Bergmann @ 2017-05-30 9:13 ` Geert Uytterhoeven 2017-06-02 15:27 ` Arnd Bergmann 0 siblings, 1 reply; 9+ messages in thread From: Geert Uytterhoeven @ 2017-05-30 9:13 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Arnd Bergmann Cc: Olof Johansson, Linus Walleij, Rob Herring, Linus Torvalds, linux-arch, arm, linux-kernel, linux-arm-kernel, ksummit-discuss Hi Arnd, On Tue, May 23, 2017 at 4:17 PM, Arnd Bergmann <arnd@arndb.de> wrote: > On Tue, May 23, 2017 at 11:49 AM, Geert Uytterhoeven > <geert@linux-m68k.org> wrote: >> On Mon, May 22, 2017 at 5:11 PM, Olof Johansson <olof@lixom.net> wrote: >>> On Mon, May 22, 2017 at 4:44 AM, Linus Walleij <linus.walleij@linaro.org> wrote: >>>> On Fri, May 19, 2017 at 9:34 PM, Olof Johansson <olof@lixom.net> wrote: >>> >>> Yeah, asking people to spread out across releases would remove >>> dependencies a lot, but it would also slow down progress and frustrate >>> a lot of contributors so we don't do that. >> >> The above works fine for new support, or for new platforms. >> >> There's still support being migrated from platform code to DT, which >> requires three steps: >> 1. New DT-aware driver support, >> 2. DT update to use the new driver support, >> 3. Clean up platform code after optional DTB backwards compatibility >> grace period, >> To make matters worse, 1 may conflict with the existing platform code, >> and 2 must sometimes not be done before 1. Hence you may need three kernel >> releases. >> So we're already planning now what to clean up for v4.15 ;-) >> >> Would it be acceptable to do step 2 in the same release, after the driver >> support has entered in -rc1? I know this is more than just replacing >> numbers by symbolic values. > > I'd say it really depends on the individual case. Do you have a particular > platform in mind? E.g. For some of the more obsolete platforms that > Linus Walleij has worked on over time, we have sometimes relaxed the > rules about clean bisection and just merged everything in parallel, knowing > that nobody else was likely to run that code on a vanilla kernel anyway. This is for Renesas R-Car Gen2 SoCs, so we do care about DT backward compatibility (for a while), and about bisection. Last headache was "[PATCH v4 00/23] soc: renesas: Add R-Car RST driver for obtaining mode pin state" (https://lkml.org/lkml/2016/10/21/500). This used a shared immutable branch, but that caused several merge conflicts. Next one will be smaller, as it's not really moving functionality from platform code to DT, but switching to a new and better clock driver framework, so there's only the dependency of DT on the new driver "[PATCH v2 00/10] clk: renesas: rcar-gen2: Add new CPG/MSSR drivers" (https://lkml.org/lkml/2017/5/19/212) I'll go create an inventory of stuff in platform code for Renesas SoCs that still needs to be converted to DT... Thanks! Gr{oetje,eeting}s, Geert -- Geert Uytterhoeven -- There's lots of Linux beyond ia32 -- geert@linux-m68k.org In personal conversations with technical people, I call myself a hacker. But when I'm talking to journalists I just say "programmer" or something like that. -- Linus Torvalds ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 9+ messages in thread
* Re: [GIT PULL] ARM: SoC fixes (and a cross-arch dt-include fix) 2017-05-30 9:13 ` Geert Uytterhoeven @ 2017-06-02 15:27 ` Arnd Bergmann 0 siblings, 0 replies; 9+ messages in thread From: Arnd Bergmann @ 2017-06-02 15:27 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Geert Uytterhoeven Cc: Olof Johansson, Linus Walleij, Rob Herring, Linus Torvalds, linux-arch, arm, linux-kernel, linux-arm-kernel, ksummit-discuss On Tue, May 30, 2017 at 11:13 AM, Geert Uytterhoeven <geert@linux-m68k.org> wrote: > Hi Arnd, > > On Tue, May 23, 2017 at 4:17 PM, Arnd Bergmann <arnd@arndb.de> wrote: >> On Tue, May 23, 2017 at 11:49 AM, Geert Uytterhoeven >> <geert@linux-m68k.org> wrote: >>> On Mon, May 22, 2017 at 5:11 PM, Olof Johansson <olof@lixom.net> wrote: >>>> On Mon, May 22, 2017 at 4:44 AM, Linus Walleij <linus.walleij@linaro.org> wrote: >>>>> On Fri, May 19, 2017 at 9:34 PM, Olof Johansson <olof@lixom.net> wrote: >>>> >>>> Yeah, asking people to spread out across releases would remove >>>> dependencies a lot, but it would also slow down progress and frustrate >>>> a lot of contributors so we don't do that. >>> >>> The above works fine for new support, or for new platforms. >>> >>> There's still support being migrated from platform code to DT, which >>> requires three steps: >>> 1. New DT-aware driver support, >>> 2. DT update to use the new driver support, >>> 3. Clean up platform code after optional DTB backwards compatibility >>> grace period, >>> To make matters worse, 1 may conflict with the existing platform code, >>> and 2 must sometimes not be done before 1. Hence you may need three kernel >>> releases. >>> So we're already planning now what to clean up for v4.15 ;-) >>> >>> Would it be acceptable to do step 2 in the same release, after the driver >>> support has entered in -rc1? I know this is more than just replacing >>> numbers by symbolic values. >> >> I'd say it really depends on the individual case. Do you have a particular >> platform in mind? E.g. For some of the more obsolete platforms that >> Linus Walleij has worked on over time, we have sometimes relaxed the >> rules about clean bisection and just merged everything in parallel, knowing >> that nobody else was likely to run that code on a vanilla kernel anyway. > > This is for Renesas R-Car Gen2 SoCs, so we do care about DT backward > compatibility (for a while), and about bisection. Ok, I see. > Last headache was "[PATCH v4 00/23] soc: renesas: Add R-Car RST driver for > obtaining mode pin state" (https://lkml.org/lkml/2016/10/21/500). This used > a shared immutable branch, but that caused several merge conflicts. > > Next one will be smaller, as it's not really moving functionality from > platform code to DT, but switching to a new and better clock driver framework, > so there's only the dependency of DT on the new driver > "[PATCH v2 00/10] clk: renesas: rcar-gen2: Add new CPG/MSSR drivers" > (https://lkml.org/lkml/2017/5/19/212) Ok, so there is already a working driver for these chips, but you want to move to a better driver and binding. That's all fine, but I'm not sure about why you want to do this faster at all. Presumably you want to use the new driver quickly so you can add new platforms not using the old driver, but then you'd have a couple of years of grace period before removing the old driver for customers with existing out of tree dts files, so I would assume that waiting another release or two before moving the DT files over is not adding a huge burden. > I'll go create an inventory of stuff in platform code for Renesas SoCs that > still needs to be converted to DT... That would certainly be helpful, yes. Arnd ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 9+ messages in thread
* Re: [GIT PULL] ARM: SoC fixes (and a cross-arch dt-include fix) 2017-05-23 9:49 ` Geert Uytterhoeven 2017-05-23 14:17 ` Arnd Bergmann @ 2017-05-23 16:42 ` Olof Johansson 1 sibling, 0 replies; 9+ messages in thread From: Olof Johansson @ 2017-05-23 16:42 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Geert Uytterhoeven Cc: Linus Walleij, Rob Herring, Linus Torvalds, linux-arch, arm, linux-kernel, linux-arm-kernel, ksummit-discuss On Tue, May 23, 2017 at 2:49 AM, Geert Uytterhoeven <geert@linux-m68k.org> wrote: > Hi Olof, > > On Mon, May 22, 2017 at 5:11 PM, Olof Johansson <olof@lixom.net> wrote: >> On Mon, May 22, 2017 at 4:44 AM, Linus Walleij <linus.walleij@linaro.org> wrote: >>> On Fri, May 19, 2017 at 9:34 PM, Olof Johansson <olof@lixom.net> wrote: >>>> - We've started telling people to avoid cross-tree shared branches if all >>>> they're doing is picking up one or two DT-used constants from a >>>> shared include file, and instead to use the numeric values on first >>>> submission. Follow-up moving over to symbolic names are sent in right >>>> after -rc1, i.e. here. It's only a few minor patches of this type. >>> >>> OK it seems like a reasonable process. >>> >>> It's not like I can think about anything better. >>> >>> I was more opting for doing things this way: >>> >>> - Create bindings and <dt-bindings/foo/bar.h> merge it into the >>> foo subsystem. >>> >>> - Merge driver into drivers/foo/bar.c that use <dt-bindings/foo/bar.h> >>> >>> - Submit DTS patch to ARM SoC (or whetever) using only numerical >>> values. >>> >>> - After the merge window, follow up with a patch replacing the >>> numerical constants with #defines from <dt-bindings/foo/bar.h> >> >> You're describing exactly what we've been pushing people towards. >> >> If it's just a few simple references it's not significantly more >> awkward, and decouples merges and removes need for stable branches. >> Essentially we've become slightly more lax in what we're willing to >> consider _right after_ -rc1 to include these tweaks (and often patches >> to turn on new drivers in defconfigs). >> >> If the amount of contents grows too large we might need to tweak >> things further, maybe with something pre-rc1 but that's more awkward. >> >>> An alternative would obviously be to wait for the next merge window >>> after merging the driver patch but I guess people are too impatient >>> to do that (including me). >> >> Yeah, asking people to spread out across releases would remove >> dependencies a lot, but it would also slow down progress and frustrate >> a lot of contributors so we don't do that. > > The above works fine for new support, or for new platforms. > > There's still support being migrated from platform code to DT, which > requires three steps: > 1. New DT-aware driver support, > 2. DT update to use the new driver support, > 3. Clean up platform code after optional DTB backwards compatibility > grace period, > To make matters worse, 1 may conflict with the existing platform code, > and 2 must sometimes not be done before 1. Hence you may need three kernel > releases. > So we're already planning now what to clean up for v4.15 ;-) > > Would it be acceptable to do step 2 in the same release, after the driver > support has entered in -rc1? I know this is more than just replacing > numbers by symbolic values. Part of why we encouraged a more stretched-out approach in your case was that we used to get quite a few dependent branches for Renesas platforms, and when there were things to fixup, a lot of respins and churn. So we asked to move a little slower to avoid DoS:ing ourselves. As far as the above process goes: 1+2 is exactly what we're encouraging others to do. The main discussion point here is when there's substantial shared dt-includes between driver and the DTS contents. Most of the time, for most drivers, that's usually not the case. As Arnd suggested, it might be helpful to have specific examples to discuss here. -Olof ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 9+ messages in thread
end of thread, other threads:[~2017-06-02 15:27 UTC | newest] Thread overview: 9+ messages (download: mbox.gz / follow: Atom feed) -- links below jump to the message on this page -- 2017-05-19 19:34 [GIT PULL] ARM: SoC fixes (and a cross-arch dt-include fix) Olof Johansson 2017-05-22 11:44 ` Linus Walleij 2017-05-22 15:11 ` Olof Johansson 2017-05-23 8:27 ` [Ksummit-discuss] " Daniel Vetter 2017-05-23 9:49 ` Geert Uytterhoeven 2017-05-23 14:17 ` Arnd Bergmann 2017-05-30 9:13 ` Geert Uytterhoeven 2017-06-02 15:27 ` Arnd Bergmann 2017-05-23 16:42 ` Olof Johansson
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox; as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).