linuxppc-dev.lists.ozlabs.org archive mirror
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Hunter Cobbs <hunter.cobbs@gmail.com>
To: Hollis Blanchard <hollis_blanchard@mentor.com>
Cc: devicetree-discuss@lists.ozlabs.org, linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org
Subject: Re: "status" property checks
Date: Thu, 07 Jan 2010 20:35:43 -0600	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <1262918143.2716.8.camel@ccs-laptop> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <1262905673.11702.16.camel@localhost.localdomain>

I think that is definitely a solution.  It does centralize the testing
for this particular issue.  The only thing question I have is if its
really better to have the upper level do the check.  Shouldn't the
driver itself handle the hardware and device node status?

On Thu, 2010-01-07 at 15:07 -0800, Hollis Blanchard wrote:
> Right now, a number of drivers honor the "status" property on device
> nodes (via of_device_is_available() checks), but it's open-coded in each
> driver. I'm thinking of "hiding" arbitrary devices from the kernel, and
> setting this property seems like the best approach, but at the moment
> that would require modifying all OF drivers to check for it.
> 
> Wouldn't the better approach be to have of_platform_device_probe()
> itself do the check, and not call the driver's probe() routine if the
> device isn't available?
> 

  reply	other threads:[~2010-01-08  2:35 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 7+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2010-01-07 23:07 "status" property checks Hollis Blanchard
2010-01-08  2:35 ` Hunter Cobbs [this message]
2010-01-08 18:34   ` Hollis Blanchard
2010-01-08 19:28     ` Scott Wood
2010-01-08 19:45       ` Hollis Blanchard
2010-01-08 23:46         ` David Gibson
2010-01-08 23:58           ` Hollis Blanchard

Reply instructions:

You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:

* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
  and reply-to-all from there: mbox

  Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style

* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
  switches of git-send-email(1):

  git send-email \
    --in-reply-to=1262918143.2716.8.camel@ccs-laptop \
    --to=hunter.cobbs@gmail.com \
    --cc=devicetree-discuss@lists.ozlabs.org \
    --cc=hollis_blanchard@mentor.com \
    --cc=linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org \
    /path/to/YOUR_REPLY

  https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html

* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
  via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).