On 10/06/2025 15:15, Konrad Dybcio wrote: > On 6/2/25 3:01 PM, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote: >> On 08/05/2025 16:26, Konrad Dybcio wrote: >>> On 4/23/25 5:37 PM, Rob Herring wrote: >>>> On Sat, Apr 19, 2025 at 10:49:26AM +0530, Krishna Chaitanya Chundru wrote: >>>>> There are many places we agreed to move the wake and perst gpio's >>>>> and phy etc to the pcie root port node instead of bridge node[1]. >>>>> >>>>> So move the phy, phy-names, wake-gpio's in the root port. >>>>> There is already reset-gpio defined for PERST# in pci-bus-common.yaml, >>>>> start using that property instead of perst-gpio. >>>> >>>> Moving the properties will break existing kernels. If that doesn't >>>> matter for these platforms, say so in the commit msg. >>> >>> I don't think we generally guarantee *forward* dt compatibility though, no? >> We do not guarantee, comment was not about this, but we expect. This DTS >> is supposed and is used by other projects. There was entire complain >> last DT BoF about kernel breaking DTS users all the time. > > Yeah I get it.. we're in a constant cycle of adding new components and > later coming to the conclusion that whoever came up with the initial > binding had no clue what they're doing.. > > That said, "absens carens".. if users or developers of other projects > don't speak up on LKML (which serves as the de facto public square for > DT development), we don't get any feedback to take into account when > making potentially breaking changes (that may have a good reason behind > them). We get a patch from OpenBSD people every now and then, but it's > a drop in the ocean. > I don't understand what you are commenting on. Do you reject what I asked for? Best regards, Krzysztof
