From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Peter Maydell Subject: Re: ARM topic: Is DT on ARM the solution, or is there something better? Date: Wed, 23 Oct 2013 12:41:44 +0100 Message-ID: References: <52644A9E.3060007@wwwdotorg.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Return-path: In-Reply-To: Sender: devicetree-owner-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org To: Matt Sealey Cc: Stephen Warren , "devicetree-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org" , "ksummit-2013-discuss-cunTk1MwBs98uUxBSJOaYoYkZiVZrdSR2LY78lusg7I@public.gmane.org" , "linux-arm-kernel-IAPFreCvJWM7uuMidbF8XUB+6BGkLq7r@public.gmane.org" List-Id: devicetree@vger.kernel.org On 22 October 2013 22:44, Matt Sealey wrote: > Any driver that fails probing for an optional property is > broken and needs fixing. I agree, but I note that by this rule all the primecell peripheral drivers are broken, because the binding docs say that the "clocks" and "clock-names" properties are optional but if you omit them from the dt node then the kernel refuses to even call the driver's probe code. (This is specifically irritating for QEMU because it means we have to create a dummy clock node in our device tree just to placate the kernel sufficiently that we can get it to talk to a PL011 UART model.) -- PMM -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe devicetree" in the body of a message to majordomo-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html