From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Tony Lindgren Subject: Re: [PATCHv2] of: Add generic handling for ePAPR 1.1 fail-sss states Date: Thu, 8 Sep 2016 13:19:31 -0700 Message-ID: <20160908201931.kvkqn5cuowovxph3@atomide.com> References: <20160829223542.18871-1-tony@atomide.com> <57C74306.9020901@gmail.com> <20160831214151.wzq7y54xxs2qj422@atomide.com> <20160908155830.ov5so3vm2kmmccty@atomide.com> <57D1B75E.4020106@gmail.com> <57D1B959.5090108@gmail.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Return-path: Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <57D1B959.5090108@gmail.com> Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org To: Frank Rowand Cc: Rob Herring , Grant Likely , "devicetree@vger.kernel.org" , "linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" , linux-omap , Nishanth Menon , Tero Kristo , Tom Rini List-Id: devicetree@vger.kernel.org * Frank Rowand [160908 12:18]: > > On 09/08/16 08:58, Tony Lindgren wrote: > >> Just to consider other ways of doing it, we could use the compatible > >> flag to tag devices that need to be just idled on probe, but that does > >> not seem like generic solution to me. > > > > Yuck. Again overloading a property to convey multiple pieces of > > information. > > I should have been more explicit in that statement. > > If the hardware device does not have "wires" routed to a connector or > bus then it is still the same device. Thus the compatible should be > the same. > > The difference is the way the device is used in the SOC or board. That is correct. The device is exactly the same. Regards, Tony