On 9/23/24 14:42, Geert Uytterhoeven wrote:
Hi David,
On Mon, Sep 23, 2024 at 10:41 AM David Gibson
<david@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On Mon, Sep 23, 2024 at 10:22:03AM +0200, Geert Uytterhoeven wrote:
On Mon, Sep 23, 2024 at 5:41 AM David Gibson
<david@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
So, essentially you're just adding new labels as aliases to existing
labels?
Ok, I can see at least two ways of doing that which I think are a more
natural fit than allowing symbols to be phandles.
[...]
# Method 2: /aliases
Does the (Linux) DT overlay code support updating aliases?
Last time I needed that (almost a decade ago), it did not.
Huh. I hadn't realised the kernel kept a separate cache of aliases
that wasn't updated. Assuming that's still the case, that would
complicate matters a bit.
Indeed.
"[PATCH/RFC 0/3] of/overlay: Update aliases when added or removed"[1]
was never applied, due to me never getting to all of the requested changes.
[1] https://lore.kernel.org/all/1435675876-2159-1-git-send-email-geert+renesas@xxxxxxxxx/
FTR, if anyone is interested in this, IIRC I have an updated version
somewhere that did implement some of the requested changes. Just ask.
Thanks!
Gr{oetje,eeting}s,
Geert
Hi, I would be interested in picking up that patch series and getting it
merged. Regardless of whether we use alias for mikroBUS, I think it is
high time the devicetree support is improved in Linux kernel.
Ayush Singh
