On Fri, Jul 05, 2019 at 01:11:01PM +0800, Bin Meng wrote: > On Fri, Jul 5, 2019 at 11:59 AM Anup Patel <Anup.Patel@xxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > > From: linux-riscv <linux-riscv-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> On Behalf Of Bin > > > Meng > > > Sent: Friday, July 5, 2019 9:23 AM > > > To: linux-riscv <linux-riscv@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>; devicetree > > > <devicetree@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>; Rob Herring <robh+dt@xxxxxxxxxx>; Mark > > > Rutland <mark.rutland@xxxxxxx>; Albert Ou <aou@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>; > > > Paul Walmsley <paul.walmsley@xxxxxxxxxx>; Palmer Dabbelt > > > <palmer@xxxxxxxxxx>; Yash Shah <yash.shah@xxxxxxxxxx> > > > Subject: [PATCH] riscv: dts: fu540-c000: Add "status" property to cpu node > > > > > > Per device tree spec, the "status" property property shall be present for > > > nodes representing CPUs in a SMP configuration. This property is currently > > > missing in cpu 1/2/3/4 node in the fu540-c000.dtsi. > > > > We don't need explicit "status = okay" for SOC internal devices > > (such as PLIC, INTC, etc) which are always enabled by default. > > > > Yes, that's fine because those device bindings do not require them. > > > Absence of "status" DT prop is treated as enabled by default. > > > > But per current device tree spec, "status" in cpu node is mandatory. > (spec uses "shall"). Missing it is a spec violation. I think this is a spec bug (or at least misleading wording in the spec). IEEE 1275 says (for status as a generic property): The absence of this property menas that the operational status is unknown or okay. ... and I think it's fine to treat that the same as an explicit "okay" here, as we do generically in Linux. Thanks, Mark.
