On Tue, Sep 05, 2023 at 07:06:43PM +0530, Vignesh Raman wrote: > Hi Maxime, > > On 05/09/23 17:27, Maxime Ripard wrote: > > On Tue, Sep 05, 2023 at 05:11:43PM +0530, Vignesh Raman wrote: > > > > > Also, that node actually has a label ("usb"), defined here: > > > > > https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/torvalds/linux.git/tree/arch/arm64/boot/dts/qcom/msm8916.dtsi#n2322 > > > > > > > > > > So you can end up with > > > > > > > > > > &usb { > > > > > dr_mode = "host"; > > > > > }; > > > > > > > > ... which is the simplest and thus more robust one. > > > > > > > > > > Should it be, > > > &{/soc@0/usb} { > > > dr_mode = "host"; > > > }; > > > > No. The &{/...} syntax refers to a path. &... refers to a label. They > > are not equivalent. > > Sorry I was not clear before. > > With, > &usb { > dr_mode = "host"; > }; > > The target is <0xffffffff> and fdtoverlay fails to apply the dtbo. You do have /plugin/ and have compiled the base device tree with overlay support, right? > With, > &{/soc@0/usb} { > dr_mode = "host"; > }; > > The target-path is "/soc@0/usb" (usb: usb@78d9000) Right, and that's not the path you want to modify. The path you want to modify is /soc@0/usb@78d9000. usb is the label, it's absolute, and you can't mix and match a path ("/soc@0/") and a label ("usb") Maxime
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature