[PATCH v1 2/3] arm64: dts: ti: Add Aquila AM69 Support

[Vignesh Raghavendra]

Hi Francesco,

On 06/11/25 15:49, Francesco Dolcini wrote:
>>> Yes, known. Is this an issue?
>>>
>>> This node must be disabled, no matter what is present in any included
>>> dtsi file, it's a deliberate decision.
>>>
>>> This dtsi file describes a SoM, the used pins/functions are defined on
>>> the pinout, but this node cannot be enabled unless the SoM is mated with
>>> a carrier board that is exposing it.
>> Same as my point above, you shouldn't enable nodes that are not used
>> or have anything attached. The SoM only has some edge connectors so
>> it should not be enabled at the SoM level, that we seem to agree, but
>> the carrier board doesn't connect those lines to anything either. They
>> just run to a pin header with nothing attached, how is that header
>> any different than the pins on the edge of the SoM?
> You are commenting something unrelated here, or I am not understanding
> you.
> 
> You commented that the status = "disabled" is redundant. We both agree
> that this node needs to be disabled in the SoM dtsi, and it is already
> like that.
> 
> I would prefer to keep the redundant "disabled", because I see value on
> not having to rely on what is done on any included dtsi, where the
> original node is defined. 


One can always reverse compile the DTB to see if a node is enabled or not.

> I see this as a common pattern in multiple
> dts/dtsi file and is what I would prefer to have (and I do not see any
> kind of maintenance  overhead on having it nor this being in conflict
> with dts-coding-style.rst).

I cannot seem to find any precedence to such a pattern (adding status =
"disabled" for nodes that are already disabled at SoC level dtsi.) Could
you point me to some?

> 
> Vignesh, Nishanth, what is your expectation on this redundant
> `status = "disabled"` property?
> 	

Assuming such pattern exists, please add a note in the commit message in
the next version.

> Francesco
> 

-- 
Regards
Vignesh
https://ti.com/opensource