From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: David Gibson Subject: Re: [PATCH] of/device: Don't register disabled devices Date: Thu, 6 Jan 2011 10:35:35 +1100 Message-ID: <20110105233535.GB8846@yookeroo> References: <20110103230122.25772.72990.stgit@localhost6.localdomain6> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: devicetree-discuss-bounces+gldd-devicetree-discuss=m.gmane.org-uLR06cmDAlY/bJ5BZ2RsiQ@public.gmane.org Errors-To: devicetree-discuss-bounces+gldd-devicetree-discuss=m.gmane.org-uLR06cmDAlY/bJ5BZ2RsiQ@public.gmane.org To: "Blanchard, Hollis" Cc: devicetree-discuss-uLR06cmDAlY/bJ5BZ2RsiQ@public.gmane.org, linux-kernel-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org, Scott Wood , linuxppc-dev-uLR06cmDAlY/bJ5BZ2RsiQ@public.gmane.org List-Id: devicetree@vger.kernel.org On Wed, Jan 05, 2011 at 02:53:27PM -0800, Blanchard, Hollis wrote: > On 01/03/2011 03:01 PM, Grant Likely wrote: > > Device nodes with the property status="disabled" are not usable and so > > don't register them when parsing the device tree for devices. > > > This is great and all, but a fair amount of driver code explicitly > searches the tree, rather than registering a probe function. That's why > our earlier patches in this area were more comprehensive. > > What are your thoughts on handling those cases? One by one. Trying to handle the explicit searches automagically is just asking for trouble. -- David Gibson | I'll have my music baroque, and my code david AT gibson.dropbear.id.au | minimalist, thank you. NOT _the_ _other_ | _way_ _around_! http://www.ozlabs.org/~dgibson