From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from yow.seanm.ca (toronto-hs-216-138-233-67.s-ip.magma.ca [216.138.233.67]) by ozlabs.org (Postfix) with SMTP id B1B99DDEE1 for ; Mon, 3 Mar 2008 06:43:33 +1100 (EST) Message-ID: <47CB0363.6000705@pikatech.com> Date: Sun, 02 Mar 2008 14:43:31 -0500 From: Sean MacLennan MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Josh Boyer Subject: Re: [PATCH 3/2][NEWEMAC] Use status property for unused/unwired EMACs References: <20080301081600.74598ce4@zod.rchland.ibm.com> <20080301084140.7abc703e@zod.rchland.ibm.com> In-Reply-To: <20080301084140.7abc703e@zod.rchland.ibm.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Cc: linuxppc-dev@ozlabs.org List-Id: Linux on PowerPC Developers Mail List List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Josh Boyer wrote: > Convert ibm_newemac to use the of_device_is_available function when checking > for unused/unwired EMACs. We leave the current check for an "unused" property > to maintain backwards compatibility for older device trees. Newer device > trees should simply use the standard "status" property in the EMAC node. > > The taishan DTS file is updated to reflect this. > What is the advantage of documenting unwired devices? I ask because the taco does not have emac1 connected. I handle it by not defining emac1 in the dts file. Is it better to document it and disable it? Or is this mainly for reference boards to show that while the PPC supports to emacs, only one is enabled on the reference board? i.e. We want reference design boards to show what *could* be done, but production boards to show what *is* done? Cheers, Sean