From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Phil Elwell Subject: Re: [PATCH v10 3/4] dtc: Plugin and fixup support Date: Tue, 29 Nov 2016 12:57:11 +0000 Message-ID: References: <1480077131-14526-1-git-send-email-pantelis.antoniou@konsulko.com> <1480077131-14526-4-git-send-email-pantelis.antoniou@konsulko.com> <20161128041228.GJ30927@umbus.fritz.box> <4672e164-aae0-6306-fe70-146a1f930cf7@raspberrypi.org> <20161129021131.GD13307@umbus.fritz.box> <66c7f8c5-94e9-a6ca-4402-fa0ccf2a6ac0@raspberrypi.org> <1F9EDF06-98B1-4270-AA58-1A9D9A9F9803@konsulko.com> <96BE1B80-0843-4981-AA2A-E89EA6A02600@konsulko.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Return-path: In-Reply-To: <96BE1B80-0843-4981-AA2A-E89EA6A02600-OWPKS81ov/FWk0Htik3J/w@public.gmane.org> Sender: devicetree-compiler-owner-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org To: Pantelis Antoniou Cc: David Gibson , Jon Loeliger , Grant Likely , Frank Rowand , Rob Herring , Jan Luebbe , Sascha Hauer , Simon Glass , Maxime Ripard , Thomas Petazzoni , Boris Brezillon , Antoine Tenart , Stephen Boyd , Devicetree Compiler , devicetree-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org List-Id: devicetree@vger.kernel.org On 29/11/2016 12:24, Pantelis Antoniou wrote: > First note is that this is exactly what the portable connector is supposed to > do; abstract away the SoC differences. > > Second note is that it’s not the overlay application that’s having problems, it’s > your parameter patching method. > > The 'spimaxfrequency = <&can0>,"spi-max-frequency:0”’ form could more easily be > done by targeting aliases instead of node labels. > > I.e. You can apply the overlay, set an alias to the node and instead of referencing > the label, reference the alias. But the patching is done before the overlays are applied, in isolation from the base tree, so that they can still be used with the kernel configfs overlay mechanism. How do aliases (which associated symbols with absolute paths) help? > Again, this is a stop-gap until the portable connector is done, but what I take out > of this is the need for a parameterization step in which an overlay is modified before > it is applied according to an external parameter. Yes, absolutely. Phil