lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2021]   [Jul]   [2]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: [PATCH] mfd: mfd-core: Change "Failed to locate of_node" warning to debug
On Fri, Jul 02, 2021 at 07:36:07PM +0100, Lee Jones wrote:
> On Fri, 02 Jul 2021, Daniel Thompson wrote:
>
> > On Thu, Jul 01, 2021 at 03:34:43PM +0000, Yunus Bas wrote:
> > > Am Mittwoch, dem 30.06.2021 um 13:33 +0100 schrieb Lee Jones:
> > > > On Wed, 30 Jun 2021, Daniel Thompson wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > On Wed, Jun 30, 2021 at 07:27:32AM +0000, Yunus Bas wrote:
> > > > > > Am Dienstag, dem 29.06.2021 um 14:39 +0100 schrieb Lee Jones:
> > > > > > Imagine only required parts of the MFD is connected to the
> > > > > > designed
> > > > > > system and unrequired parts are not. In that case, fully
> > > > > > describing the
> > > > > > MFD in the devicetree wouldn't represent the system at all.
> > > > >
> > > > > To describe hardware that is present but unused we would normally
> > > > > use
> > > > > status = "disabled".
> > > > >
> > > > > So if, for example, your board cannot use the RTC for some reason
> > > > > (perhaps the board has no 32KHz oscillator?) then the DA9062 still
> > > > > contains the hardware but it is useless. Such hardware could be
> > > > > described as:
> > > > >
> > > > > da9062_rtc: rtc {
> > > > >     compatible = "dlg,da9062-rtc";
> > > > >     status = "disabled";
> > > > > }
> > > > >
> > > > > Is this sufficient to suppress the warnings when the hardware is
> > > > > not fully described?
> > <snip>
> > > >
> > > > Right.  This is a potential solution.
> > >
> > > @Daniel, you hit the nail on the head :). Thank you for that.
> > >
> > > This solution would indeed surpress the warnings, but what is the
> > > benefit of this? We would define never used device nodes just to
> > > satisfy the driver.
> >
> > I would say that doing so resolves an awkward ambiguity of
> > interpretation w.r.t. the bindings.
> >
> > 1. The MFD device compatible "dlg,da9062" tells the OS that we
> > have an DA9062. An DA9062 contains six functions and this can be
> > inferred *entirely* from the MFD compatible string. We do not
> > need any subnodes to tell us that a DA9062 contains an RTC. The OS
> > can (and in this case, does) already know that there is an RTC
> > because we have a DA9062 (and a datasheet).
> >
> > 2. The default behaviour when a node has no status field is to
> > assume that is is *enabled*.
> >
> > Based on #1 and #2 above then assuming that a DT that omits the
> > sub-nodes actually means "disable the RTC" is risky. #2 might
> > actually make it more natural to assume that the device is present and
> > functional because there is no status field to tell MFD *not* to
> > initialize it.
>
> Exactly. Nicely put.
>
> > That leaves us in a situation where there is no way to correctly guess
> > the authors intent when sub-nodes are omitted from the DT.
>
> > Given this is something of a corner case and the documentation is
> > ambiguous then a warning of the author does not clearly resolve the
> > ambiguity seems reasonable.
>
> I'm having trouble parsing this part.

That's quite reasonable because was is written is nonsense!
Perhaps s/warning of the author/warning if the author/ will help
but there are still too many words to say something very simple.
The whole last paragraph could simply say:

The bindings documentation is ambiguous so is it reasonable
for the OS to issue a warning when the devicetree author does
not clearly resolve the ambiguity.

This is still a long sentence but at least it is no longer a
complicated one!


Daniel.

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2021-07-02 21:13    [W:0.108 / U:2.756 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site