Re: [PATCH v2 16/18] arm64: dts: hi3660: Harmonize DWC USB3 DT nodes name

[Krzysztof Kozlowski]

On Fri, Dec 18, 2020 at 09:11:42PM -0800, John Stultz wrote:
> On Wed, Nov 11, 2020 at 1:22 AM Serge Semin
> <Sergey.Semin@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >
> > In accordance with the DWC USB3 bindings the corresponding node
> > name is suppose to comply with the Generic USB HCD DT schema, which
> > requires the USB nodes to have the name acceptable by the regexp:
> > "^usb(@.*)?" . Make sure the "snps,dwc3"-compatible nodes are correctly
> > named.
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Serge Semin <Sergey.Semin@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> > Acked-by: Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzk@xxxxxxxxxx>
> > ---
> >  arch/arm64/boot/dts/hisilicon/hi3660.dtsi | 2 +-
> >  1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
> >
> > diff --git a/arch/arm64/boot/dts/hisilicon/hi3660.dtsi b/arch/arm64/boot/dts/hisilicon/hi3660.dtsi
> > index d25aac5e0bf8..aea3800029b5 100644
> > --- a/arch/arm64/boot/dts/hisilicon/hi3660.dtsi
> > +++ b/arch/arm64/boot/dts/hisilicon/hi3660.dtsi
> > @@ -1166,7 +1166,7 @@ usb_phy: usb-phy {
> >                         };
> >                 };
> >
> > -               dwc3: dwc3@ff100000 {
> > +               dwc3: usb@ff100000 {
> >                         compatible = "snps,dwc3";
> >                         reg = <0x0 0xff100000 0x0 0x100000>;
> 
> 
> Oof. So this patch is breaking the usb gadget functionality on HiKey960 w/ AOSP.
> 
> In order to choose the right controller for gadget mode with AOSP, one
> sets the "sys.usb.controller" property, which until now for HiKey960
> has been "ff100000.dwc3".
> After this patch, the controller isn't found and we would have to
> change userland to use "ff100000.usb", which would then break booting
> on older kernels (testing various LTS releases on AOSP is one of the
> key uses of the HiKey960).
> 
> So while I understand the desire to unify the schema, as HiKey960
> really isn't likely to be used outside of AOSP, I wonder if reverting
> this one change is in the best interest of not breaking existing
> userland?

The node names are not part of an ABI, are they? I expect only
compatibles and properties to be stable. If user-space looks for
something by name, it's a user-space's mistake.  Not mentioning that you
also look for specific address... Imagine remapping of addresses with
ranges (for whatever reason) - AOSP also would be broken? Addresses are
definitely not an ABI.

Best regards,
Krzysztof