From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Grant Likely Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH 1/5] OMAP3:I2C: Add device tree nodes for beagle board Date: Wed, 20 Jul 2011 12:55:13 -0600 Message-ID: <20110720185513.GI4642@ponder.secretlab.ca> References: <1309426647-31587-1-git-send-email-manjugk@ti.com> <1309426647-31587-2-git-send-email-manjugk@ti.com> <20110706185546.GJ4871@ponder.secretlab.ca> <74CDBE0F657A3D45AFBB94109FB122FF049E21C203@HQMAIL01.nvidia.com> <20110720110419.GA6999@S2100-06.ap.freescale.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Return-path: Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20110720110419.GA6999-+NayF8gZjK2ctlrPMvKcciBecyulp+rMXqFh9Ls21Oc@public.gmane.org> Sender: linux-tegra-owner-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org To: Shawn Guo Cc: Stephen Warren , "G, Manjunath Kondaiah" , "devicetree-discuss-uLR06cmDAlY/bJ5BZ2RsiQ@public.gmane.org" , "ben-linux-elnMNo+KYs3YtjvyW6yDsg@public.gmane.org" , "linux-tegra-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org" , "linux-omap-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org" , "linux-arm-kernel-IAPFreCvJWM7uuMidbF8XUB+6BGkLq7r@public.gmane.org" List-Id: devicetree@vger.kernel.org On Wed, Jul 20, 2011 at 07:04:20PM +0800, Shawn Guo wrote: > > Mostly consistency. Most of the experience we have with the flattened > > device tree up to this point hasn't bothered with the 'status' > > property. It is only when AMP and hypervisors cam online that it > > became important to use a status property, and that only when the > > kernel needs to be told that the device does indeed exist, but it must > > not be touched. I'd like to continue that pattern for new DT users > > with the default assumption that a device is enabled unless the board > > .dts explicitly disables it. [...] > Besides the bothering that we have to list so many unused controllers > in individual board dts file, it's also hard to tell which controllers > are actually available on the board. People have to look at imx53.dts > to get a full list and then exclude the ones in imx53-.dts as > "disabled". > > And if we go the way opposite, adding "disabled" status for everyone > in imx53.dts, we will only need to specify the peripherals that are > actually available on board with "okay" status in imx53-.dts. > And it's much more clear for people to see what peripherals are > available on individual board. > > So I'm going the way than you suggested. Please let me know if you > strongly dislikes it. Yes, I strongly dislike it. I understand the concern, but at this early stage with converting to device tree I think consistency between platforms is more important. We can talk about the issue at Linaro Connect in 2 weeks, but in the mean time please use the enabled-by-default/explicitly-disabled pattern. g.