[PATCH 0/3] of: add update device node status via cmdline feature

Shawn Guo shawn.guo at linaro.org
Fri Aug 23 04:11:52 EDT 2013

On Fri, Aug 23, 2013 at 03:51:07PM +0800, Shawn Guo wrote:
> The device tree mailing list is changed to devicetree at vger.kernel.org.
> On Fri, Aug 23, 2013 at 03:09:08PM +0800, Dong Aisheng wrote:
> > I tried the uboot way with fdt command to change the node status, it can work.
> > However, it seems using fdt command is much complicated than the way i did with kernel
> > command line and it also does not support enable/disable multi nodes at the same time.
> > e.g, in order to enable ecspi1 and uart3 and disable gpmi:
> > with uboot fdt command:
> > U-Boot > fdt addr ${dtbaddr}
> > U-Boot > fdt set /soc/aips-bus at 02000000/spba-bus at 02000000/ecspi at 02008000 status "okay"
> > U-Boot > fdt set /soc/aips-bus at 02100000/serial at 021e8000 status "okay"
> > U-Boot > fdt set /soc/gpmi-nand at 00112000 status "disabled"
> Oh, you can use the U-Boot environment and scripting function to make
> it even easier than your kernel cmdline approach to use.
> > with kernel cmdline:
> > fdt.enable=ecspi at 02008000,serial at 021e8000 fdt.disable=gpmi-nand at 00112000
> > So from the using perspective, kernel command line is much more simple and easy than uboot.
> NAK.
> It's not about simple or easy.  The approach completely defects the



> point of the whole device tree project - moving stuff that kernel does
> not care out of kernel.  Choosing device from mutually exclusive ones
> (due to pin conflict of board design) should NOT be something that
> kernel cares.
> Kernel gets device tree blob from firmware/bootloader and instantiates
> drivers for devices found in device tree.  That's all what kernel should
> do, nothing more.  Asking kernel to manipulate the device availability
> property in device tree is plainly wrong to me.
> If your board is designed with so many pin conflicts between devices,
> you have to do whatever you can do to get the decision made in device
> tree blob, before it gets passed to kernel.  Kernel does NOT care about
> that decision making.

More information about the linux-arm-kernel mailing list