On 11/09/2025 16:29, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote:
>>> --- a/drivers/tty/serial/samsung_tty.c
>>> +++ b/drivers/tty/serial/samsung_tty.c
>>
>>> @@ -2655,8 +2621,6 @@ static const struct of_device_id s3c24xx_uart_dt_match[] = {
>>> .data = S5L_SERIAL_DRV_DATA },
>>> { .compatible = "samsung,exynos850-uart",
>>> .data = EXYNOS850_SERIAL_DRV_DATA },
>>> - { .compatible = "axis,artpec8-uart",
>>> - .data = ARTPEC8_SERIAL_DRV_DATA },
>>> { .compatible = "google,gs101-uart",
>>> .data = GS101_SERIAL_DRV_DATA },
>>> { .compatible = "samsung,exynos8895-uart",
>>> @@ -2828,8 +2792,6 @@ OF_EARLYCON_DECLARE(s5pv210, "samsung,s5pv210-uart",
>>> s5pv210_early_console_setup);
>>> OF_EARLYCON_DECLARE(exynos4210, "samsung,exynos4210-uart",
>>> s5pv210_early_console_setup);
>>> -OF_EARLYCON_DECLARE(artpec8, "axis,artpec8-uart",
>>> - s5pv210_early_console_setup);
>>>
>>> static int __init gs101_early_console_setup(struct earlycon_device *device,
>>> const char *opt)
>>
>> Removing these breaks backwards-compatibility with existing DTBs,
>> which lack the new "samsung,exynos8895-uart" fallback compatible value.
>
> This was just applied, so ABI break would be fine. It should be however
> clearly expressed in the commit msg.
>
> I have a feeling that not much testing was happening in Samsung around
> this patchset and only now - after I applied it - some things happen.
> But it is damn too late, my tree is already closed which means this is
> going to be the ABI.
Ah, no, I mixed up patches with recent DTS for Artpec-8. This serial ABI
was accepted three years ago (!!!), so you are Geert absolutely right -
that's ABI break.
Folks in Samsung, maybe try to organize some weekly sessions sharing
knowledge after upstreaming reviews/feedbacks? I feel like you are
repeating same mistakes.
Best regards,
Krzysztof
