On Monday 12 of August 2013 12:34:48 Mark Brown wrote:
> On Mon, Aug 12, 2013 at 01:14:20PM +0200, Tomasz Figa wrote:
> > On Monday 12 of August 2013 15:37:47 Padmavathi Venna wrote:
> > > + i2s_0: i2s@03830000 {
> > > + status = "disabled";
> >
> > If a node does not require any board-specific properties for the device
> > to operate properly, there is no point in disabling it, just to add a
> > single status property at board level.
>
> I'd expect that to interact badly with the pinmuxing - unless the device
> is disabled it'll try to grab its pins on probe which is not going to be
> a good idea unless it is actually wired up for use in the system. Or is
> there some other mechanism for handling that?
Ah, good point. Now I wonder whether pinctrl nodes shouldn't be considered
board-specific and specified in board-level dts instead?
Best regards,
Tomasz
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe devicetree" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
