Re: [PATCH v3 1/4] i3c: dw: Remove core reset "_rst" suffix

On 20/05/2026 13:43, Jisheng Zhang wrote:
> On Wed, May 20, 2026 at 09:13:58AM +0200, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote:
>> On Tue, May 19, 2026 at 01:51:02PM +0800, Jisheng Zhang wrote:
>>> It's redundant. This suffix has been in the code from day1, fortunately
>>> there's no such dt property usage in all dw i3c users after grepping all
>>> dts files, so we can remove it.
>>
>> Hm, how could you grep all 3rd party / out of tree users of this?
>>
>>>
>>> Signed-off-by: Jisheng Zhang <[email protected]>
>>> ---
>>>  drivers/i3c/master/dw-i3c-master.c | 2 +-
>>>  1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
>>>
>>> diff --git a/drivers/i3c/master/dw-i3c-master.c b/drivers/i3c/master/dw-i3c-master.c
>>> index 655693a2187e..c4a848cc978a 100644
>>> --- a/drivers/i3c/master/dw-i3c-master.c
>>> +++ b/drivers/i3c/master/dw-i3c-master.c
>>> @@ -1587,7 +1587,7 @@ int dw_i3c_common_probe(struct dw_i3c_master *master,
>>>  		return PTR_ERR(master->pclk);
>>>  
>>>  	master->core_rst = devm_reset_control_get_optional_exclusive_deasserted(&pdev->dev,
>>> -										"core_rst");
>>> +										"core");
>>
>> ABI impact for something released since 2018. Cleanup of name is not
>> really worth affecting users. core_rst is not the best name but it is
>> not incorrect, either.
>>
> Hmm make sense.
> Two questions: if the ABI is introduced but never used by any intree
> users, is modifying the ABI taken as "ABI breakage"?

Yes. The out of tree user was working before. Now it is not working. How
is it not a "breakage"?

> 
> if the ABI is only used by outtree users, can we modify the ABI?

Yes and no. Depends. It's up to platform maintainer and you need
reasons. The reasons MUST be documented. See writing-bindings. I do not
see here a good reason.

Best regards,
Krzysztof

-- 
linux-i3c mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-i3c