[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <53835A40.8050902@roeck-us.net>
Date: Mon, 26 May 2014 08:14:08 -0700
From: Guenter Roeck <linux@...ck-us.net>
To: Sebastian Reichel <sre@...g0.de>,
Pantelis Antoniou <pantelis.antoniou@...sulko.com>
CC: Grant Likely <grant.likely@...retlab.ca>,
Geert Uytterhoeven <geert@...ux-m68k.org>,
Rob Herring <robherring2@...il.com>,
Stephen Warren <swarren@...dotorg.org>,
Matt Porter <matt.porter@...aro.org>,
Koen Kooi <koen@...inion.thruhere.net>,
Alison Chaiken <Alison_Chaiken@...tor.com>,
Dinh Nguyen <dinh.linux@...il.com>,
Jan Lubbe <jluebbe@...net.de>,
Alexander Sverdlin <alexander.sverdlin@....com>,
Michael Stickel <ms@...able.de>,
Dirk Behme <dirk.behme@...il.com>,
Alan Tull <delicious.quinoa@...il.com>,
Sascha Hauer <s.hauer@...gutronix.de>,
Michael Bohan <mbohan@...eaurora.org>,
Ionut Nicu <ioan.nicu.ext@....com>,
Michal Simek <monstr@...str.eu>,
Matt Ranostay <mranostay@...il.com>,
"devicetree@...r.kernel.org" <devicetree@...r.kernel.org>,
"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Pete Popov <pete.popov@...sulko.com>,
Dan Malek <dan.malek@...sulko.com>,
Georgi Vlaev <georgi.vlaev@...sulko.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 2/8] OF: Introduce DT overlay support.
On 05/26/2014 08:09 AM, Sebastian Reichel wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On Mon, May 26, 2014 at 02:55:37PM +0300, Pantelis Antoniou wrote:
>> On May 26, 2014, at 2:23 PM, Grant Likely wrote:
>>> On Mon, 26 May 2014 12:57:32 +0200, Geert Uytterhoeven <geert@...ux-m68k.org> wrote:
>>> Heeheehee. We're back where we started. The original question is whether
>>> or not that is a valid approach. If the overlay represents something
>>> that can be hot plugged/unplugged, then passing it through to the second
>>> kernel would be the wrong thing to do. If it was a permenant addition,
>>> then it probably doesn't need to be removed.
>>>
>>> We do actually keep the overlay info in memory for the purpose of
>>> removal exactly so we can support hot unbinding of devices and drivers
>>> that make use of overlays.
>>
>> We can support either method. I am not feeling any wiser about which one should be
>> the default TBH, so what about exporting a property and let the platform
>> figure out which is more appropriate?
>
> What about supporting "negative" overlays (so an overlay, that
> removes DT entries)? That way one could reverse apply an overlay.
> All the dependency stuff would basically be the users problem. The
> kernel only checks if it can apply an overlay (and return some error
> code if it can't). This this code is needed anyway to check the
> input from userspace.
>
Does that mean that I would need to describe such a negative overlay
for each overlay to be able to get it removed ?
This would introduce an endless source of problems with bad "reverse"
overlay descriptions. Sure, that would "be the users problem",
but I don't think that would make it better.
Guenter
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists