On 08/19/2016 04:21 PM, Rob Herring wrote: > On Thu, Aug 18, 2016 at 4:30 PM, Suman Anna <s-anna@xxxxxx> wrote: >> Hi Rob, >> >> On 08/16/2016 09:54 AM, Rob Herring wrote: >>> On Fri, Aug 12, 2016 at 11:43 AM, Bjorn Andersson >>> <bjorn.andersson@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: >>>> On Fri 12 Aug 09:00 PDT 2016, Suman Anna wrote: >>>> >>>>> On 08/12/2016 06:02 AM, Lee Jones wrote: >>>>>> On Thu, 11 Aug 2016, Suman Anna wrote: >>>>>> > > [...] > >>>>> Once "rprocs" hits mainline, I will definitely switch over the >>>>> wkup_m3_ipc nodes to use that standard property and can fix this driver >>>>> independently. >>>>> >>>> >>>> We're stuck with this problem all over the place, as the world continues >>>> to evolve we will have issues with DT being static. This has been >>>> discussed many times before and the suggested solution is always what >>>> you implemented here - make the code deal with both versions, preferably >>>> by patching. >>>> >>>> The fact that you had to export the of_ operations indicates that no-one >>>> has tried this before and I'm happy you did. I'm however not happy about >>>> the size of the chunk of code it takes to do this dance. >>>> >>>> I think for this to be practical we need to provide higher level >>>> operations for DT modification - in this case a of_rename_property(). >>>> >>>> @Rob, any comments on this? >>> >>> I agree. Pantelis submitted some helpers in this area a while back >>> (for the changeset API IIRC). I believe they were mostly fine, but >>> needed some users. >>> >> >> Is this the series you are talking about? >> http://marc.info/?l=devicetree&m=146341689512653&w=2 >> >> It looks like that series is effective only when OF_DYNAMIC is enabled. > > Yes, as changeset API allows adding/removing nodes. It's probably just > a matter of time until OF_DYNAMIC is always enabled. > >> Probably a dumb question, but is this limited to DT Overlays? > > No, changesets are the mechanism overlays use to apply changes. > >> This >> particular usage is a one-time change (first-time module is insmod'd) >> mainly to provide compatibility for older DTBs, thereafter we wouldn't >> be required to make any changes. It is definitely not a bulk update and >> we don't want to unroll the changes even if we removed the module. > > If you only need property changes, then we could do similar helpers to > make it easier for callers. So if you are ok with an of_rename_property() API, I can submit a patch for the same. regards Suman -- 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
