From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1756315AbcE0Ufc (ORCPT ); Fri, 27 May 2016 16:35:32 -0400 Received: from mail-pa0-f65.google.com ([209.85.220.65]:33864 "EHLO mail-pa0-f65.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751250AbcE0Ufa (ORCPT ); Fri, 27 May 2016 16:35:30 -0400 Message-ID: <5748AF90.3090607@gmail.com> Date: Fri, 27 May 2016 13:35:28 -0700 From: Frank Rowand Reply-To: frowand.list@gmail.com User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:17.0) Gecko/20130801 Thunderbird/17.0.8 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Pantelis Antoniou CC: Rob Herring , Matt Porter , Grant Likely , Koen Kooi , Guenter Roeck , Marek Vasut , Devicetree List , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 0/6] of: overlays: New target methods References: <1463429892-3369-1-git-send-email-pantelis.antoniou@konsulko.com> <57476782.3040703@gmail.com> <70AB0C5B-737D-41B9-8D21-4205379ABDB7@konsulko.com> In-Reply-To: <70AB0C5B-737D-41B9-8D21-4205379ABDB7@konsulko.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On 5/27/2016 7:46 AM, Pantelis Antoniou wrote: > Hi Frank, > >> On May 27, 2016, at 00:15 , Frank Rowand wrote: >> >> On 5/16/2016 1:18 PM, Pantelis Antoniou wrote: >>> This patchset implements two new target methods. >>> >>> A target index method which allows selecting different >>> targets according to an argument using an extended API and >>> a target root method that fences the target only >>> to a specific given root. >>> >>> Documentation and unit-tests are included. >> >> I think you are attacking the problem the wrong way. >> >> If I understand correctly, the problem statement is: >> >> In some cases, a devicetree overlay is meant to describe >> a pluggable piece of hardware, which may be plugged into >> various locations on a platform. It should be possible >> to apply a single devicetree to one or more locations >> on a given platform. >> >> If that is the case, then putting the locations where the >> overlay can be applied into the devicetree is not the >> approach that I would use. It seems it would be better >> to specify the target location as a separate item from >> the overlay to the method that applies the devicetree. >> In that case, I would put the node(s) describing the >> pluggable hardware in the root node of the overlay >> devicetree (dtc expects a root node). The apply >> method can easily find the node(s) and relocate them >> to the appropriate location in the platform's >> devicetree. >> > > It’s a bit more complicated. This was considered initially > but we ended up with the targets on the overlay. > > It can work either way, but the problem with storing the > indirect targets in the base tree is that there is no > change in the bindings of the targets. I am not suggesting putting the targets in the base tree. I do not know where it should be. Still thinking about that part. > > Putting things in the overlay seemed like it would have > no effect on the base tree whatsoever. > > >> -Frank >> > > Regards > > — Pantelis > >