From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Date: Thu, 10 Jan 2008 14:13:31 +1100 From: David Gibson To: Kumar Gala Subject: Re: How complete should the DTS be? Message-ID: <20080110031331.GF17816@localhost.localdomain> References: <4782DAD8.1080104@pikatech.com> <86AA8535-E2CF-4891-900B-340049A5CA19@kernel.crashing.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii In-Reply-To: <86AA8535-E2CF-4891-900B-340049A5CA19@kernel.crashing.org> Cc: linuxppc-dev@ozlabs.org, Sean MacLennan List-Id: Linux on PowerPC Developers Mail List List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , On Tue, Jan 08, 2008 at 12:04:36AM -0600, Kumar Gala wrote: > > On Jan 7, 2008, at 8:07 PM, Sean MacLennan wrote: > > > Just a general question about DTS "completeness". Like all 440EP > > processors, the taco has two i2c buses. However, only one bus has > > anything connected to it. > > > > Should I show both bus entries in the DTS, or only the one that is > > used? > > I have generally only been showing the devices that are present. i.e. > > Only one emac, only one serial port. > > > > Is there a convention for this? > > The .dts should reflect the HW as its used. On some reference boards > we might put out more info because of the various configs these types > of boards can be setup in. However if something has a static config > just describe that. So in your example of two i2c buses with only one > connected, just describe the one that is used. Hrm... I'd say this is not something which has a firm convention yet. It's going to become more of an issue once we get a macros system for dtc, so the "440EP" macro would have all the devices, even if some are not connected on a given board. I'm contemplating suggesting that we adopt the "status" property from IEEE1275 to cover this. -- 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