On Wed, Jul 20, 2016 at 8:38 AM, Alexandre Belloni <alexandre.belloni@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On 20/07/2016 at 07:36:55 -0700, Andrey Smirnov wrote : >> On Wed, Jul 20, 2016 at 2:02 AM, Alexandre Belloni >> <alexandre.belloni@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: >> > On 19/07/2016 at 16:56:56 -0700, Andrey Smirnov wrote : >> >> >> I don't see any value in doing that, could you give me a realistic >> >> >> example of a scenario in which a user would want to spend some of >> >> >> uptime with RTC oscillator fault detection/glitch filtering disabled >> >> >> and then enable it? >> >> >> >> >> > >> >> > Well, the issue is not being dynamic, it is differentiating between >> >> > hardware description and user configuration. Configuration must not be in >> >> > DT. >> >> >> >> Why? And I don't mean in a generic sense, but in this particular case. >> >> What is gained by not having this bit of configuration, whose only >> >> consumer is the driver, in the device tree file? >> >> >> > >> > Because configuration doesn't belong to DT. DT is about hardware >> > description, not configuration. >> >> That doesn't really answer my question. You just re-iterating some >> maxim without explaining what is the point behind applying it. >> > > Well, that is from the device tree specification and how the device tree > maintainers want it... And yet, we have whole subsystems such as "nvmem" and I am sure plenty of other smaller examples where that maxim is being applied very lax if at all. So it seems people can and do make compromises regarding the "no configuration in DT" rule if pros of doing so outweighs the cons. Andrey -- 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
