On 3/8/23 10:16 PM, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote:

On 08/03/2023 21:09, Dipen Patel wrote:

quoted

On 3/8/23 11:05 AM, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote:

quoted

On 08/03/2023 19:45, Dipen Patel wrote:

quoted

On 2/16/23 6:17 AM, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote:

quoted

On 14/02/2023 12:55, Dipen Patel wrote:

quoted

Added timestamp provider support for the Tegra234 in devicetree
bindings.

1. Your commit does much more. You need to explain it why you drop some
property.

ACK, will address it next patch

quoted

2. Bindings go before its usage (in the patchset).

Ack...

quoted

3. Please use scripts/get_maintainers.pl to get a list of necessary
people and lists to CC.  It might happen, that command when run on an
older kernel, gives you outdated entries.  Therefore please be sure you
base your patches on recent Linux kernel.

It is based on recent linux at the time patch series was sent...

That's good but then why you do not use scripts/get_maintainers.pl? The
hint about recent kernel was just a hint... Just do not invent addresses
by yourself and use the tool to get them right.

I will take a note for the next patch series to add any missing people. The current
list of people/group is what historically helped review this new timestamp/hte subsystem.

quoted

(...)

quoted

quoted

quoted

+  properties:
+    compatible:
+      contains:
+        enum:
+          - nvidia,tegra194-gte-aon

This is an ABI break. Does your driver handle it?

yes, handling patch is part of this patch series.

Can you point me to the code which does it? I see "return -ENODEV;", so
I think you do not handle ABI break. I could miss something but since
you disagree with me, please at least bring some arguments...

Refer to patch https://patchwork.kernel.org/project/timestamp/patch/20230214115553.10416-3-dipenp@nvidia.com/
which has compatible properties added and also code changes to reflect addition/deletion of some
properties.

I referred to the code which breaks the ABI.

quoted

I am not sure I have understood about ABI break comment. How else one should handle if
there is no related gpio controller property found?

In a way it does not break existing users? There are many ways to handle
it, but I don't know your code to point you.

It is new subsystem and has only one driver which uses it so far. This was a decision taken
after review comments (By Thierry, also in the mailing list) to add this property (nvidia,gpio-controller)
and necessary changes have been made to existing user. From now on, it has to follow this change.

quoted

I am assuming you are referring to the
below code from the patch 2 (link above) when you said "return -ENODEV".

Your bindings patch points to ABI break without any
explanation/justification. Then your code #2 patch actually breaks it,
also without any justification.

I am going to add explanation/justification in the commit message in the next patch series. But to give
you context, discussion happened here https://patchwork.ozlabs.org/project/linux-gpio/patch/20221103174523.29592-3-dipenp@nvidia.com/

Best regards,
Krzysztof