On Wed, Feb 26, 2025 at 2:31 PM Zijun Hu [off-list ref] wrote:

On 2025/2/27 03:45, Rob Herring wrote:

quoted

quoted

Right, I think it's already backported to the LTS kernels, but if it breaks any
in-tree users then we'd have to revert it. I just like Rob's idea to instead
change the spec for obvious reasons 🙂

While if it is downstream, it doesn't exist, I'm reverting this for now.

perhaps, it is better for us to slow down here.

1) This change does not break any upstream code.
   is there downstream code which is publicly visible and is broken by
   this change ?

We don't know that unless you tested every dts file. We only know that
no one has reported an issue yet.

Even if we did test everything, there are DT's that aren't in the
kernel tree. It's not like this downstream DT is using some
undocumented binding or questionable things. It's a standard binding.

Every time this code is touched, it breaks. This is not even the only
breakage right now[1].

2) IMO, the spec may be right.
   The type of size is enough to express any alignment wanted.
   For several kernel allocators. type of 'alignment' should be the type
   of 'size', NOT the type of 'address'

As I said previously, it can be argued either way.

Rob

[1] https://lore.kernel.org/all/20250226115044.zw44p5dxlhy5eoni@pengutronix.de/ (local)