[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <ecc21772-54ca-23d5-aed5-f87dc7abed32@linaro.org>
Date: Wed, 6 Apr 2022 09:55:56 +0200
From: Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzysztof.kozlowski@...aro.org>
To: Vincent Whitchurch <vincent.whitchurch@...s.com>
Cc: "wsa@...nel.org" <wsa@...nel.org>, kernel <kernel@...s.com>,
"linux-i2c@...r.kernel.org" <linux-i2c@...r.kernel.org>,
"devicetree@...r.kernel.org" <devicetree@...r.kernel.org>,
"krzk+dt@...nel.org" <krzk+dt@...nel.org>,
"robh+dt@...nel.org" <robh+dt@...nel.org>,
"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/2] i2c: add binding to prevent device detection
On 06/04/2022 09:26, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote:
>>
>> I'm having a hard time drawing the line between hardware and the
>> "system" here. The bus being completely described in devicetree doesn't
>> sound like a hardware property to me, but, yes, I can change the
>> description to say that.
>
> Then you need to come up with better description. :) By system I
> understood here Operating System, therefore a Software piece or pieces.
> Bindings should not rather focus on hardware instead of referencing
> software.
Ah... I meant:
Bindings should rather focus on hardware instead of referencing software.
> Software actually not matter for the bindings... There is
> quite clear distinction between hardware and operating system...
>
> Can you explain why do you think "bus being completely described" is not
> a hardware description? Bindings and DTS describe hardware, so one of
> parts of such description is whether nodes and other properties are
> present. If all child nodes are present in DT - no-detect - and this is
> a purely hardware point of view. No software here.
Best regards,
Krzysztof
Powered by blists - more mailing lists