Peter, On 13:38-20201007, Peter Ujfalusi wrote: [...] > >>>> + status = "disabled"; > >>> > >>> I see that there is inconsistent usage of "disabled" in our SoC.dts > >>> > >>> Our generic rule has been set them to disabled in board.dtsi > >>> McASP and DSS for existing SoC dts do not follow this.. which is a tad > >>> confusing.. (considering that not even all uarts come out on every board > >>> and every uart needs pinmux to function..) > >> > >> "keep them disabled because several required properties are not present > >> as they are board specific." > >> > >> In board file the enabled mcasp must be updated with options that is > >> required for operation. Without those option the McASP can not be > >> initialized. > >> > >> I think we have been revisiting the very same discussion every time we > >> have a new SoC with McASP... > >> > > > > Yep.. This doe'snt really follow the rest of the SoC definition. [1] > > came to mind. The McASP discussion is a variation in the debate of the > > same. > > Right, saying status = "okay" to a node which is missing required > properties (which can only be added by boards when the McASP is > connected up) does not sound a good solution. > How should the SW handle that? Fail the device probe and return with > -EINVAL or eat up the error and just probe with broken configuration. > Since the peripheral is not used, the broken configuration will not > cause much runtime errors as there will be no runtime use of the peripheral. > > status of fail or fail-sss is not a good one either, their definition is: > "Indicates that the device is not operational. A serious error was > detected in the device, and it is unlikely to become operational without > repair." > > The peripheral is fine, we are just trying to enable it without > providing the needed properties. > > > I'd argue Serdes, or for that matter any IP that has a link to > > outside-the-SoC world has the same discussion point. > > status = "disabled" is still the closest thing for everything which have > external dependencies. There is not much point to enable an i2c bus > without making sure that the signals are actually routed to the pins > where they supposed to go. > > Or from other pow: a board design is not based on what is _not_ > connected to outside world, but you actually _connect_ or _enable_ > certain peripherals to external components, connectors. OK, I will buy the argument that the current status thingy is a bit overloaded and does'nt imply the correct state we need it to imply with "fail-sss" either - I remember an argument for "fail-incomplete", but that never happened anyways. Lets add this argument to the commit message and repost after testing on 5.10-rc1 please? -- Regards, Nishanth Menon Key (0xDDB5849D1736249D) / Fingerprint: F8A2 8693 54EB 8232 17A3 1A34 DDB5 849D 1736 249D
