Re: [PATCH v4 2/8] OF: Introduce DT overlay support.

[Guenter Roeck <linux@roeck-us.net>]

On 05/26/2014 03:36 PM, Sebastian Reichel wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On Mon, May 26, 2014 at 10:33:03PM +0100, Grant Likely wrote:
>> After thinking about it more, I think it is very likely that removing
>> all the overlays is the correct thing to do in the kexec use-case. When
>> kexec-ing, it makes sense that we'd want the exact same behaviour from
>> the kexec'ed kernel. That means we want the device drivers to do the
>> same thing including loading whatever overlays they depend on.
>>
>> If the flattened tree was left applied, then the behaviour becomes
>> different.
>>
>> I say always remove the overlays unless explicitly told not to, but I'm
>> struggling to come up with use cases where keeping them applied is
>> desirable.
>
> I would assume, that I want them applied in most cases. DT describes
> the hardware. If I kexec into a new kernel I change software, not
> hardware.
>
> Maybe I'm missing the main purpose of the feature. I currently see
> two useful usecases for DT overlays:
>
> 1. The dtb the kernel is booted with cannot be changed for some
>     reason, but the board has additional hardware attached (e.g.
>     the user added a sensor on the i2c bus)
> 2. The hardware is changed on the fly (e.g. the user flashed the
>     FPGA part of a zynq processor), sensors on i2c bus, ...
>
> In both cases the kernel should be booted with the additional
> overlay information IMHO. Though for the second case it should
> be possible to remove the "programmed" hardware information
> somehow.
>

3. Some hot-plug device or card is inserted or removed.

I would argue that the kernel should _not_ be booted with the overlay in place.
Otherwise the code handling overlays would have to have special handling
for the restart case, which is much more complex than just to re-insert
the overlay when it is determined that the device or card is still there.

Guenter