On 11/06/2025 17:17, Konrad Dybcio wrote: > On 6/11/25 8:36 AM, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote: >> 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? > > If the general consensus among kernel PCIe folks will come down to what > this patch does, I think it's fair to shift to a "correct" hw > description, especially if this is a requirement to resolve a blocker > on functionality (which the author didn't clarify whether is the case) Again I do not see how this argues with my comment, so please clarify: do you agree or disagree with my request? Best regards, Krzysztof
