From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: David Gibson Subject: Re: [RFC:PATCH dtc-1.3.0] dtc: Add --strip-disabled option to dtc. Date: Tue, 21 Aug 2012 10:09:31 +1000 Message-ID: <20120821000931.GH29724@truffula.fritz.box> References: <1345034325-26656-1-git-send-email-srinivas.kandagatla@st.com> <20120817060415.GC29724@truffula.fritz.box> <502E3632.70208@freescale.com> <502E52F3.7090404@st.com> <502E64F9.2020400@freescale.com> <5031F706.3050509@st.com> <50322F9C.2070403@freescale.com> <503270E1.6050902@firmworks.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <503270E1.6050902-D5eQfiDGL7eakBO8gow8eQ@public.gmane.org> List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: devicetree-discuss-bounces+gldd-devicetree-discuss=m.gmane.org-uLR06cmDAlY/bJ5BZ2RsiQ@public.gmane.org Sender: "devicetree-discuss" To: Mitch Bradley Cc: "mmarek-AlSwsSmVLrQ@public.gmane.org" , Wood Scott-B07421 , "devicetree-discuss-uLR06cmDAlY/bJ5BZ2RsiQ@public.gmane.org" , Tabi Timur-B04825 List-Id: devicetree@vger.kernel.org On Mon, Aug 20, 2012 at 07:16:17AM -1000, Mitch Bradley wrote: > On 8/20/2012 2:37 AM, Tabi Timur-B04825 wrote: > > Srinivas KANDAGATLA wrote: > >>>> But assuming that this really is the best approach, then it would make > >>>> sense for --strip-disabled to leave this node in the dtb, because > >>>> otherwise there would be no way to re-enable it. > >> --strip-disabled should still get rid for nodes marked as failed > >> as-well, because fail means something serious and un-recoverable. > > > > Well, I don't know if that's true. Does status=fail really mean > > unrecoverable? > > My intention when I first conceived of the status property is that > "fail" means that something has determined that the device is not > working properly and the software does not know how to make it work. > > That is distinct from "disabled", which means that the choice has been > made not to use the device. > > In the modern world of SoC with physically-unconnected functional units, > perhaps a new value would be appropriate: status="unused". Makes sense to me. -- 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