[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20140526230001.GB32691@earth.universe>
Date: Tue, 27 May 2014 01:00:01 +0200
From: Sebastian Reichel <sre@...nel.org>
To: Guenter Roeck <linux@...ck-us.net>
Cc: Pantelis Antoniou <pantelis.antoniou@...sulko.com>,
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.
Hi,
On Mon, May 26, 2014 at 08:14:08AM -0700, Guenter Roeck wrote:
> On 05/26/2014 08:09 AM, Sebastian Reichel wrote:
> >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.
I was thinking about supporting something like "patch --reverse". So
you can try to undo the overlay by reverse applying it and you can
do it in arbitrary order.
Note: The dependency check must be done for all overlays coming from
userspace, so that's not a problem __here__. The reverse method can
"simply" reverse the overlay patch and apply it like a normal
overlay from userspace (and thus using the same dependency checks).
-- Sebastian
Download attachment "signature.asc" of type "application/pgp-signature" (820 bytes)
Powered by blists - more mailing lists