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

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


On 5/19/2024 11:45 PM, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote:
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.
I should check on the compatible instead of adding a node that is not mentioned in the DeviceTree spec as I understand. Appreciate your help!

Best regards,

Thank you,

[Index of Archives]     [DMA Engine]     [Linux Coverity]     [Linux USB]     [Video for Linux]     [Linux Audio Users]     [Yosemite News]     [Linux Kernel]     [Linux SCSI]     [Greybus]

  Powered by Linux