Re: [PATCH v2 4/5] arm64: dts: google: Add initial dts for frankel/blazer/mustang
Doug Anderson <[email protected]>
| Newsgroups | dev.linux.lists.soc,org.infradead.lists.linux-arm-kernel,org.kernel.vger.linux-devicetree,org.kernel.vger.linux-kernel,org.kernel.vger.linux-samsung-soc,org.kernel.vger.linux-serial |
|---|---|
| Message-ID | <CAD=FV=ViYUB6NXKVNxnPGwvkHzKnNQQSJfLRhVx7T-S8t0kqKg@mail.gmail.com> |
Hi, On Wed, Aug 19, 2026 at 2:26 AM Krzysztof Kozlowski <[email protected]> wrote: > > On 19/08/2026 00:13, Doug Anderson wrote: > > I did some digging. As far as I can tell: > > > > * Nothing in the DeviceTree specification 0.4 [1] mentions that > > aliases are deprecated. > > > > * Nothing in the dt-schema repository [2] causes validation to fail > > when you use new aliases and there is no "allowlist" of old aliases > > that are allowed for historical reasons. > > > > * There is a single reference in the kernel "Documentation/devicetree" > > about not using aliases to assign an "instance ID" [3]. > > > No. The rule is saying: Do not add instance index properties OR custom > OF aliases. > > Logical "OR" means here that for you this sentence is equal to: > "Do not add custom OF aliases." That feels like a stretch. While that interpretation is correct if you read just that sentence in isolation, in the context of the patch as a whole it feels clear that the point was that you didn't want aliases specifically because they were used to assign instance IDs. The patch's subject is "Document discouraged instance IDs", not "document that aliases are bad" or even "document a bunch of bad things". The sentence is also in a paragraph that's all about instance IDs. While I understand you authored the patch, it still feels hard to read "all aliases are bad" from it. -Doug