Re: [PATCH v2 1/6] arm64/hyperv: Support DeviceTree

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]


On 15/05/2024 19:33, Roman Kisel wrote:
>>>   static bool hyperv_initialized;
>>> @@ -27,6 +30,29 @@ int hv_get_hypervisor_version(union hv_hypervisor_version_info *info)
>>>   	return 0;
>>>   }
>>> +static bool hyperv_detect_fdt(void)
>>> +{
>>> +#ifdef CONFIG_OF
>>> +	const unsigned long hyp_node = of_get_flat_dt_subnode_by_name(
>>> +			of_get_flat_dt_root(), "hypervisor");
>> Why do you add an ABI for node name? Although name looks OK, but is it
>> really described in the spec that you depend on it? I really do not like
>> name dependencies...
> Followed the existing DeviceTree's of naming and approaches in the 
> kernel to surprise less and "invent" even less. As for the spec, the 

I am sorry, but there is no approved existing approach of adding ABI for
node names. There are exceptions or specific cases, but that's not
"invent less" approach. ABI is defined by compatible.

Best regards,

[Index of Archives]     [Linux IBM ACPI]     [Linux Power Management]     [Linux Kernel]     [Linux Laptop]     [Kernel Newbies]     [Share Photos]     [Security]     [Netfilter]     [Bugtraq]     [Yosemite News]     [MIPS Linux]     [ARM Linux]     [Linux Security]     [Linux RAID]     [Samba]     [Video 4 Linux]     [Device Mapper]     [Linux Resources]
  Powered by Linux