From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Arnd Bergmann Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 1/2] ARM: mvebu: Add support to get the ID and the revision of a SoC Date: Sun, 5 Jan 2014 20:17:10 +0100 Message-ID: <201401052017.10982.arnd@arndb.de> References: <1388743185-24822-1-git-send-email-gregory.clement@free-electrons.com> <201401051525.52459.arnd@arndb.de> <20140105154023.GA2048@lunn.ch> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: Text/Plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: In-Reply-To: <20140105154023.GA2048-g2DYL2Zd6BY@public.gmane.org> Sender: linux-i2c-owner-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org To: Andrew Lunn Cc: linux-arm-kernel-IAPFreCvJWM7uuMidbF8XUB+6BGkLq7r@public.gmane.org, Gregory CLEMENT , Wolfram Sang , linux-i2c-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org, Jason Cooper , Thomas Petazzoni , stable-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org, Ezequiel Garcia , Sebastian Hesselbarth List-Id: linux-i2c@vger.kernel.org On Sunday 05 January 2014, Andrew Lunn wrote: > That would be rather odd. These nodes are in the top level SoC dtsi > file. When they are not used, they have status = "disabled" and are in > the dtb blob with this state. > > The only reason i can think of them not being present at all is if > somebody adds an optimizer to dtc which removed disabled nodes. What > does the device tree spec say about that? Are we relying on undefined > dtc behavior? There is no requirement to use the include files. If someone decides to ship a default dtb file in their boot loader, it wouldn't be a bug to leave the nodes out entirely. Arn From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: arnd@arndb.de (Arnd Bergmann) Date: Sun, 5 Jan 2014 20:17:10 +0100 Subject: [PATCH v2 1/2] ARM: mvebu: Add support to get the ID and the revision of a SoC In-Reply-To: <20140105154023.GA2048@lunn.ch> References: <1388743185-24822-1-git-send-email-gregory.clement@free-electrons.com> <201401051525.52459.arnd@arndb.de> <20140105154023.GA2048@lunn.ch> Message-ID: <201401052017.10982.arnd@arndb.de> To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org List-Id: linux-arm-kernel.lists.infradead.org On Sunday 05 January 2014, Andrew Lunn wrote: > That would be rather odd. These nodes are in the top level SoC dtsi > file. When they are not used, they have status = "disabled" and are in > the dtb blob with this state. > > The only reason i can think of them not being present at all is if > somebody adds an optimizer to dtc which removed disabled nodes. What > does the device tree spec say about that? Are we relying on undefined > dtc behavior? There is no requirement to use the include files. If someone decides to ship a default dtb file in their boot loader, it wouldn't be a bug to leave the nodes out entirely. Arn