On Wed, Nov 25, 2020 at 09:25:23AM +0100, Michael Walle wrote:
> We are going cirlces here. I guess Shawn (as the soc maintainer) has to
> step in and decide if a common soc include should contain aliases for
> nodes which are disabled. That is what it boils down to.
>
> All other arguments against having aliases in the common include can be
> found in this thread.
>
> > Distros, bootloaders, and users' cases using fixed index before could
> > avoid issues, and been used as they were.
>
> Nobody argue against having these alias. We are arguing against having
> them in the common soc include.
342ab37ecaf8 ("arm64: dts: freescale: use fixed index mmcN for
layerscape") is dropped from my tree.
Shawn
