Hi Geert, On Wed, Oct 26, 2022 at 8:29 AM Geert Uytterhoeven <geert@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > Hi Prabhakar, > > On Wed, Oct 26, 2022 at 12:39 AM Lad, Prabhakar > <prabhakar.csengg@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > On Tue, Oct 25, 2022 at 9:13 AM Geert Uytterhoeven <geert@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > On Thu, Sep 15, 2022 at 6:53 PM Prabhakar <prabhakar.csengg@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > From: Lad Prabhakar <prabhakar.mahadev-lad.rj@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> > > > > > > > > In preparation to re-use the RZ/G2UL SMARC SoM and carrier DTS/I with the > > > > RZ/Five add /omit-if-no-ref/ keyword to pinmux entries as the support for > > > > RZ/Five SMARC EVK will be gradually added. > > > > > > > > Once we have full blown support for RZ/Five SMARC EVK we can get rid of > > > > the /omit-if-no-ref/ keyword. > > > > > > > > Signed-off-by: Lad Prabhakar <prabhakar.mahadev-lad.rj@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> > > > > > > Thanks for your patch! > > > > > > I finally had a deeper look at this... > > > > > > Why do you want to disable these nodes? While they are indeed not > > > used yet on RZ/Five, they are valid hardware descriptions for the > > > RZ/Five SMARC EVK, and their presence doesn't harm anything. > > > > > > I do see a valid use case for marking pin control subnodes with > > > /omit-if-no-ref/: you can provide all possible configurations as a > > > convenience for the user, so the user no longer has to look up the > > > numeric parameters of the RZG2L_PORT_PINMUX() macros. > > > But IMHO those would belong in the SoC-specific .dtsi, not in a > > > board .dtsi. See e.g. the massive use of /omit-if-no-ref/ in sunxi > > > and rockchip .dtsi files. > > > > > > Am I missing something? > > > > > My intention was to keep the DTB as minimal as possible so that it > > includes just the required pinmuxes which were enabled on the RZ/Five. > > For example [0], [1] we do delete the pinctrl for the nodes which are > > marked as disabled. Do you think we should drop it? > > You mean > > /delete-property/ pinctrl-0; > /delete-property/ pinctrl-names; > > ? > These do not delete pinctrl subnodes, but pinctrl properties in disabled > device nodes pointing to pinctrl subnodes. The actual pinctrl subnodes > are still present. > Ahh right the pinctrl subnodes will still remain. Cheers, Prabhakar
