[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20200312114432.GA3384@piout.net>
Date: Thu, 12 Mar 2020 12:44:32 +0100
From: Alexandre Belloni <alexandre.belloni@...tlin.com>
To: Wolfram Sang <wsa@...-dreams.de>
Cc: Luca Ceresoli <luca@...aceresoli.net>,
Geert Uytterhoeven <geert@...ux-m68k.org>,
Wolfram Sang <wsa+renesas@...g-engineering.com>,
Linux I2C <linux-i2c@...r.kernel.org>,
Linux-Renesas <linux-renesas-soc@...r.kernel.org>,
linux-i3c@...ts.infradead.org,
Kieran Bingham <kieran@...uared.org.uk>,
Niklas Söderlund
<niklas.soderlund@...natech.se>, Jacopo Mondi <jacopo@...ndi.org>,
Laurent Pinchart <laurent.pinchart@...asonboard.com>,
Vladimir Zapolskiy <vz@...ia.com>,
Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
"open list:OPEN FIRMWARE AND FLATTENED DEVICE TREE BINDINGS"
<devicetree@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH 3/7] i2c: allow DT nodes without 'compatible'
On 12/03/2020 12:19:51+0100, Wolfram Sang wrote:
> > Clearly this does not fit the case reported by Alexandre: a device
> > having a driver which is known to be badly buggy, so we don't want to
> > instantiate it. But again, this should not affect DT as it is not
> > describing the HW, but only an implementation detail. Probably disabling
> > or blacklisting the driver would be a better option there?
>
> "Fixing the driver" is the first thing coming to my mind ;) But yeah,
> blacklisting would be another good solution. With only the information
> above, DT is not the right place to fix a broken driver.
>
To be clear, the driver is working properly but the HW isn't. It is a
PMIC and we need to avoid linux talking to it so the PMIC doesn't end up
killing the bus.
We end up with a node properly described in the device tree but with
status = "disabled". The relevance to the discussion was that you know
what is there and you want to avoid using its address.
See the pmic node on i2c1 in arch/arm/boot/dts/at91-sama5d3_xplained.dts
for what I'm referring to.
> > My apologies to Wolfram, I appreciate a lot the effort you are doing,
> > but before reviewing this patch I have never realized what I tried to
> > explain above.
>
> All good, Luca! Talking over code usually brings in viewpoints which
> have been missed so far. This is expected. Actually, I am very happy to
> have this discussion!
>
> All the best,
>
> Wolfram
>
--
Alexandre Belloni, Bootlin
Embedded Linux and Kernel engineering
https://bootlin.com
Powered by blists - more mailing lists