On 13.02.23 10:18, Frieder Schrempf wrote: > Hi Alexandre, > > On 01.02.23 17:26, Frieder Schrempf wrote: >> On 01.02.23 17:15, Alexandre Belloni wrote: >>> Hello, >>> >>> You can't do that, this breaks an important use case and it is the >>> reason why I didn't use device tree in the beginning. What is wrong with >>> setting BSM from userspace? You will anyway have to set the time and >>> date from userspace for it to be saved. >> >> Ok, I was already afraid there is something I missed. Can you give a >> short explanation of what use case this would break? >> >> There is nothing wrong with setting BSM from userspace. It's just the >> fact that users expect BSM to be enabled in any case as there is a >> battery on the board. It is much more effort to ensure that production, >> user, etc. are aware of an extra step required than to let the kernel >> deal with it behind the scenes. > > Would you mind elaborating on your argument that this would break stuff? > I currently don't see how an additional optional devicetree property > would break anything. Ping!?
