* Suman Anna <s-anna@xxxxxx> [151006 09:06]: > On 10/06/2015 02:52 AM, Tony Lindgren wrote: > > * Felipe Balbi <balbi@xxxxxx> [151005 17:51]: > >> > >> according to Tony we should avoid using status at all for in-SoC > >> devices. > >> > >> Tony, can you confirm I understood you correctly ? > > > > Yes. With status = "disabled" kernel completely ignores the > > device and struct device is not created at all even with the > > device being there. In general we're better off trying to > > probe the device and idle it. > > > > The only time we really want to mark something with > > status = "disabled" is if some coprocessor firmware is > > using that device and the kernel should not touch it at > > all. > > Not always, since some of the PM clocking logic depends on the state > machine variables within the kernel. > > We are also using this to deal with paper-spins (atleast in the DRA7 > case) and the DTS include model, wherein certain instances may not be > present on all variations of the SoC, and enabled specifically on the > instances that matter. Obviously, it could be done the other way too, > but as far as what Nishanth mentioned sometime back, we are following > the former for DRA7. > > In anycase, the status property on the Timer12 node can be removed, it > doesn't fall into the above category, and we are fixing it up properly > on HS devices in the kernel. Yeah please remove the status property, that can be set to disabled in the HS board specific file. Applying the first two patches into omap-for-v4.5/soc thanks. Tony -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-omap" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
