Re: RFC: Encoding property deletion in FDT

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]



On Wed, May 2, 2018 at 11:12 AM, Ian Lepore <ian@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> On Wed, 2018-05-02 at 10:49 -0500, Rob Herring wrote:
>> On Wed, May 2, 2018 at 4:19 AM, Phil Elwell <phil@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>> >
>> > David et al.,
>> >
>> > I've mentioned before the problem posed for overlays by boolean properties, i.e.
>> > that a boolean property that is "true" in a base DTB cannot be made "false" by an
>> > overlay because doing so requires that the property be deleted. A solution for this
>> > problem would be to define a new FDT tag - FDT_DEL_PROP, say - that is used to encode
>> > any /delete-property/ found in a node during overlay compilation. When the overlay is
>> > applied, the named property would be deleted if present.
>> >
>> > A heuristic would be needed to decide whether this property should be encoded or just
>> > acted on immediately - the use of the '-@' command line parameter would seem to fit the
>> > bill.
>> >
>> > Although one might consider extending this mechanism to cover node deletion, in practice
>> > I think this would be too problematic in terms of broken phandle references etc., and in
>> > most cases 'status = "disabled"' achieves the same objective, so I'm not proposing this
>> > be added.
>> >
>> > Is such a change something you would consider supporting, or do you have an alternative
>> > preferred solution?
>> Can you give some examples of cases where you need this feature.
>>
>> I'm concerned about how an OS is supposed to deal with properties
>> disappearing. Do we need to start refcounting properties too? That's
>> not really a reason to not support this in dtc, but rather perhaps a
>> policy decision in the OS to not delete properties once a node is in
>> use/active. Would such a policy break your use case?
>>
>> Rob
>
> How is an in-use property being deleted at runtime different than the
> value assigned to an in-use property being changed at runtime? Likewise
> for adding a boolean property to an in-use node at runtime, that could
> have exactly the same type of operational impact as deleting a boolean
> would have. Why would a different policy or handling for those cases be
> needed?

It's not any different. We don't have a policy for any of it in Linux
ATM other than any overlay support that gets added will need to
consider these issues.

Rob
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe devicetree-compiler" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html



[Index of Archives]     [Device Tree]     [Device Tree Spec]     [Linux Driver Backports]     [Video for Linux]     [Linux USB Devel]     [Linux Audio Users]     [Linux Kernel]     [Linux SCSI]     [Yosemite Backpacking]

  Powered by Linux