Messages in this thread | | | Date | Fri, 17 Mar 2023 19:43:53 +0200 | Subject | Re: [PATCH 02/11] dt-bindings: serial: snps-dw-apb-uart: Relax dma-names order constraint | From | Cristian Ciocaltea <> |
| |
On 3/17/23 18:26, Conor Dooley wrote: > On Fri, Mar 17, 2023 at 04:54:47PM +0100, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote: >> On 17/03/2023 11:21, Cristian Ciocaltea wrote: >>> On 3/17/23 10:31, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote: >>>> On 15/03/2023 12:47, Cristian Ciocaltea wrote: >>>>> Commit 370f696e4474 ("dt-bindings: serial: snps-dw-apb-uart: add dma & >>>>> dma-names properties") documented dma-names property to handle Allwiner >>>>> D1 dtbs_check warnings, but relies on a strict rx->tx ordering, which is >>>>> the reverse of what a different board expects: >>>>> >>>>> rk3326-odroid-go2.dtb: serial@ff030000: dma-names:0: 'rx' was expected >>>>> >>>>> A quick and incomplete check shows the inconsistency is present in many >>>>> other DT files: >>>> >>>> Why not fixing the DTS? The properties should have fixed order. >>> >>> I was initially concerned about the risk of a potential ABI breakage, >>> but I think that's not really a problem since dma-names is not directly >>> accessed in the driver and DT Kernel API doesn't rely on a particular order. >>> >>> If there are no objections, I would switch the order in the binding to >>> tx->rx, since that's what most of the DTS use, and fix the remaining ones. >> >> Since we added the order recently, I rather assume it is the correct or >> preferred one. > > IIRC I checked around the other serial bindings & there was not a > consistent order that all serial bindings used, so I picked the order that > was used across the various allwinner boards that do use dma-names.
Thanks for clarifying this, Conor! Would it be fine to switch to tx->rx order as it requires less changes to fix the inconsistencies?
> Before changing dts files, it's probably a good idea to make sure that > the dma-names are not used somewhere outside of Linux.
Right, that means we cannot exclude the ABI breakage concern. Not sure how easy would be to actually verify this. Hence I wonder if there is really no chance to allow the flexible order in the binding..
> Cheers, > Conor
| |