From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1751163AbbCSSrD (ORCPT ); Thu, 19 Mar 2015 14:47:03 -0400 Received: from utopia.booyaka.com ([74.50.51.50]:38508 "EHLO utopia.booyaka.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1750862AbbCSSrA (ORCPT ); Thu, 19 Mar 2015 14:47:00 -0400 Date: Thu, 19 Mar 2015 18:46:59 +0000 (UTC) From: Paul Walmsley To: Stephen Warren cc: Russell King - ARM Linux , linux-tegra@vger.kernel.org, linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org, Mark Rutland , Alexandre Courbot , Pawel Moll , Ian Campbell , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Eduardo Valentin , devicetree@vger.kernel.org, Rob Herring , Thierry Reding , Paul Walmsley , Kumar Gala , Hiroshi DOYU Subject: Re: [PATCHv2 3/3] Documentation: DT bindings: Tegra AHB: note base address change In-Reply-To: <550B155E.9050308@wwwdotorg.org> Message-ID: References: <20150317083221.32662.14647.stgit@baseline> <20150317083221.32662.96822.stgit@baseline> <20150317103806.GU8656@n2100.arm.linux.org.uk> <550AEE6B.5080301@wwwdotorg.org> <550AFF52.6070503@wwwdotorg.org> <550B155E.9050308@wwwdotorg.org> User-Agent: Alpine 2.02 (DEB 1266 2009-07-14) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Thu, 19 Mar 2015, Stephen Warren wrote: > We should not document Linux 4.1 as the cut-off. DT bindings are supposed to > be OS agnostic. While it's practically unlikely, it is entirely possible for > some other OS to have already implemented support for this binding, and the > current binding is an ABI. We have no control over if/when any non-Linux code > is updated to add support for a 0-based offset for existing SoCs, and > certainly no versions of Linux or any other OS can be updated retro-actively > except perhaps a few linux-stable versions. We can however write the binding > in such a way as support for new SoCs requires the new 0-based address, since > there is no binding specification for those new chips yet, and the time when > you add the new binding documentation is the first time any OS could possibly > add conformant support for it. > > In summary, I believe the binding document must state that T20/30/114/124 > require the offset of 4 in reg value, and newer chips require no offset in the > reg value. We can still always accept either in the Linux kernel going forward > based on the principle of being lenient re: input data. That's fine. I'll send a patch for that. - Paul