[PATCH V2 RESEND] arm: dts: Exynos5: Use pmu_system_controller phandle for dp phy

[Vivek Gautam]

Hi,


On Mon, Nov 24, 2014 at 4:02 PM, Thierry Reding
<thierry.reding at gmail.com> wrote:
> On Mon, Nov 24, 2014 at 11:11:23AM +0530, Vivek Gautam wrote:
>> DP PHY now require pmu-system-controller to handle PMU register
>> to control PHY's power isolation. Adding the same to dp-phy
>> node.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Vivek Gautam <gautam.vivek at samsung.com>
>> Reviewed-by: Jingoo Han <jg1.han at samsung.com>
>> Tested-by: Javier Martinez Canillas <javier.martinez at collabora.co.uk>
>> Cc: Kukjin Kim <kgene at kernel.org>
>> ---
>>  arch/arm/boot/dts/exynos5250.dtsi |    2 +-
>>  arch/arm/boot/dts/exynos5420.dtsi |    4 ++--
>>  2 files changed, 3 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)
>>
>> diff --git a/arch/arm/boot/dts/exynos5250.dtsi b/arch/arm/boot/dts/exynos5250.dtsi
>> index 0a588b4..bebd099 100644
>> --- a/arch/arm/boot/dts/exynos5250.dtsi
>> +++ b/arch/arm/boot/dts/exynos5250.dtsi
>> @@ -732,7 +732,7 @@
>>
>>       dp_phy: video-phy at 10040720 {
>>               compatible = "samsung,exynos5250-dp-video-phy";
>> -             reg = <0x10040720 4>;
>> +             samsung,pmu-syscon = <&pmu_system_controller>;
>>               #phy-cells = <0>;
>>       };
>>
>> diff --git a/arch/arm/boot/dts/exynos5420.dtsi b/arch/arm/boot/dts/exynos5420.dtsi
>> index 8617a03..1353a09 100644
>> --- a/arch/arm/boot/dts/exynos5420.dtsi
>> +++ b/arch/arm/boot/dts/exynos5420.dtsi
>> @@ -503,8 +503,8 @@
>>       };
>>
>>       dp_phy: video-phy at 10040728 {
>> -             compatible = "samsung,exynos5250-dp-video-phy";
>> -             reg = <0x10040728 4>;
>> +             compatible = "samsung,exynos5420-dp-video-phy";
>> +             samsung,pmu-syscon = <&pmu_system_controller>;
>>               #phy-cells = <0>;
>>       };
>>
>
> It seems like these nodes have been in the Linux tree since 3.12 and
> 3.17, respectively and these changes break backwards-compatibility. Has
> anyone thought about the possible consequences?

Sorry for my ignorance, but i have a doubt.
If the bindings and device node both are being changed in the same kernel
version (as fixes),
so that the stable will have both; then the only scenerio of backward
compatibility comes when kernel is upgraded but not dtbs.
Does such upgradation makes sense for distros ?

>
> Although, looking more closely it seems like this isn't the first time
> that backwards-compatibility was broken in these files, so perhaps
> nobody cares...
>
> Thierry



-- 
Best Regards
Vivek Gautam
Samsung R&D Institute, Bangalore
India