[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <d1510b98-5094-4eec-b81b-55d0ba3e1b4a@mailbox.org>
Date: Mon, 18 Aug 2025 16:58:47 +0200
From: Marek Vasut <marek.vasut@...lbox.org>
To: Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzk@...nel.org>,
Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzysztof.kozlowski@...aro.org>,
Rob Herring <robh@...nel.org>, Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzk+dt@...nel.org>,
Conor Dooley <conor+dt@...nel.org>,
Maxime Coquelin <mcoquelin.stm32@...il.com>,
Alexandre Torgue <alexandre.torgue@...s.st.com>,
Christoph Niedermaier <cniedermaier@...electronics.com>,
devicetree@...r.kernel.org, linux-stm32@...md-mailman.stormreply.com,
linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
kernel@...electronics.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH] arm: dts: stm32: Drop redundant status=okay
On 8/18/25 4:56 PM, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote:
> On 18/08/2025 16:51, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote:
>> On 18/08/2025 16:45, Marek Vasut wrote:
>>> On 8/18/25 4:37 PM, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote:
>>>> Device nodes are enabled by default, so remove confusing or duplicated
>>>> enabling of few nodes. No practical impact, verified with dtx_diff.
>>> I assume the "no practical impact" means DTs are identical before/after
>>> this patch ? If yes,
>>
>>
>> No, DTS cannot be identical in this case because one had status, new one
>> does not have. Practical impact means... visible impact in practice. How
>> to say it more clearly?
> To illustrate: this is "no practical impact":
>
>
> --- dts-old/st/stm32mp157c-dhcom-picoitx.dtb
> +++ dts-new/st/stm32mp157c-dhcom-picoitx.dtb
> @@ -691,14 +691,12 @@
> interrupt-controller;
> interrupts-extended = <0x49 0x00
> reg = <0x33>;
> - status = "okay";
Sorry, yes, this ^ is what I meant and obviously wrote too fast and too
inaccurately. My RB still stands. Thanks
Powered by blists - more mailing lists