Re: [PATCH 1/6] dt-bindings: usb: dwc3: Clean up hs_phy_irq in bindings

[Krishna Kurapati PSSNV]

On 11/29/2023 3:46 PM, Johan Hovold wrote:
> On Wed, Nov 29, 2023 at 10:28:25AM +0100, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote:
> > On 28/11/2023 12:32, Krishna Kurapati PSSNV wrote:
> > > > So back to my initial proposal, with a slight modification moving
> > > > pwr_event first (e.g. as it is not a wakeup interrupt):
> > > >
> > > > qusb2-:
> > > >
> > > > 	- const: pwr_event
> > > > 	- const: qusb2_phy
> > > > 	- const: ss_phy_irq	(optional)
> > > >
> > > > qusb2:
> > > >
> > > > 	- const: pwr_event
> > > > 	- const: hs_phy_irq
> > > > 	- const: qusb2_phy
> > > > 	- const: ss_phy_irq	(optional)
> > > >
> > > > femto-:
> > > > 	- const: pwr_event
> > > > 	- const: dp_hs_phy_irq
> > > > 	- const: dm_hs_phy_irq
> > > > 	- const: ss_phy_irq	(optional)
> > > >
> > > > femto:
> > > > 	- const: pwr_event
> > > > 	- const: hs_phy_irq
> > > > 	- const: dp_hs_phy_irq
> > > > 	- const: dm_hs_phy_irq
> > > > 	- const: ss_phy_irq	(optional)
> >
> > I did not follow entire thread and I do not know whether you change the
> > order in existing bindings, but just in case: the entries in existing
> > bindings cannot change the order. That's a strict ABI requirement
> > recently also discussed with Bjorn, because we want to have stable DTB
> > for laptop platforms. If my comment is not relevant, then please ignore.
>
> Your comment is relevant, but I'm not sure I agree.
>
> The Qualcomm bindings are a complete mess of DT snippets copied from
> vendor trees and which have not been sanitised properly before being
> merged upstream (partly due to there not being any public documentation
> available).
>
> This amounts to an unmaintainable mess which is reflected in the
> binding schemas which similarly needs to encode every random order which
> the SoC happened to use when being upstreamed. That makes the binding
> documentation unreadable too, and the next time a new SoC is upstreamed
> there is no clear hints of what the binding should look like, and we end
> up with yet another permutation.
>
> As part of this exercise, we've also determined that some of the
> devicetrees that are already upstream are incorrect as well as
> incomplete.
>
> I really see no alternative to ripping of the plaster and cleaning this
> up once and for all even if it "breaks" some imaginary OS which (unlike
> Linux) relies on the current random order of these interrupts.
>
> [ If there were any real OSes actually relying on the order, then that
> would be a different thing of course. ]

Hi Krzysztof, Johan,

  We are modifying all the DT's in accordance to bindings as well. 
Still it would be breaking ABI ?

Regards,
Krishna,