Re: [PATCH v4 2/3] ARM: dts: Update the status of RTC DT node of Exynos5250 SoC to "okay"

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

 




On 19 August 2013 13:48, Vikas Sajjan <vikas.sajjan@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> Hi Kukjin,
>
> On 19 August 2013 00:10, Kukjin Kim <kgene.kim@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>> On 08/15/13 17:59, Tomasz Figa wrote:
>>>
>>> Hi Tushar,
>>>
>> [...]
>>
>>
>>>>> +               status = "okay";
>>>>>
>>>>>          };
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Sometime back we had a discussion on this, the decision was to enable
>>>> it in respective boards.
>>>
>>>
>>> This is not entirely true.
>>>
>>> According to ePAPR, chapter 2.3.4, the status property has a well defined
>>> meaning and it should be set to "disabled" when "the device is not
>>> presently operational, but it might become operational in the future (for
>>> example, something is not plugged in, or switched off)".
>>>

Ok.

>> So in my understanding, you mean using "okay" is wrong and only "disabled"
>> is used? and in board dt file? Already there are too many "okay"...
>>
>>
>>> This means that unless setup of the device is missing something (e.g.
>>> board-specific properties, like regulators or pin config) or there is a
>>> valid technical reason for disabling the device by default (e.g. it needs
>>> certain SoC pins to be properly connected to something), then such device
>>> should be "okay", because it is operational.
>>>
>>>> Also if we are going ahead with this, we would need to remove the
>>>> corresponding status statements from board files.
>>>
>>>
>>> Yes, this is true.
>>>
>> According to above, probably we should add "disabled" in board dt file?
>>
>
> what Tushar meant was, since we made the status as "okay" in
> exynos5250.dtsi itself, its better to remove the "okay" from the board
> DTS files of exynos5250 ( exynos5250-snow.dts and
> exynos5250-arndale.dts). Am I right Tushar?
>

Yeah. Since we are going ahead with enabling the RTC node in
exynos5250.dtsi, I thought it would be good to remove the RTC nodes
from subsequent board files.

>
>> If I'm wrong, correct me.
>>
>> (+ dt ml)
>>
>> Anyway, I'm not sure how to use 'okay' and 'disabled' for status...
>>
>> I think, every hardware information should be defined in SoC dt file and
>> maybe some of them could be set disabled or okay in each board dt file...
>>
>> Any suggestions?
>>
>> Thanks,
>> Kukjin
>
>
>
> --
> Thanks and Regards
>  Vikas Sajjan



-- 
Tushar Behera
--
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




[Index of Archives]     [Device Tree Compilter]     [Device Tree Spec]     [Linux Driver Backports]     [Video for Linux]     [Linux USB Devel]     [Linux PCI Devel]     [Linux Audio Users]     [Linux Kernel]     [Linux SCSI]     [XFree86]     [Yosemite Backpacking]
  Powered by Linux