Re: [PATCH v4 2/8] OF: Introduce DT overlay support.

[Guenter Roeck]

On 05/26/2014 08:09 AM, Sebastian Reichel wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On Mon, May 26, 2014 at 02:55:37PM +0300, Pantelis Antoniou wrote:
> > On May 26, 2014, at 2:23 PM, Grant Likely wrote:
> > > On Mon, 26 May 2014 12:57:32 +0200, Geert Uytterhoeven <geert@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > > Heeheehee. We're back where we started. The original question is whether
> > > or not that is a valid approach. If the overlay represents something
> > > that can be hot plugged/unplugged, then passing it through to the second
> > > kernel would be the wrong thing to do. If it was a permenant addition,
> > > then it probably doesn't need to be removed.
> > >
> > > We do actually keep the overlay info in memory for the purpose of
> > > removal exactly so we can support hot unbinding of devices and drivers
> > > that make use of overlays.
> >
> > We can support either method. I am not feeling any wiser about which one should be
> > the default TBH, so what about exporting a property and let the platform
> > figure out which is more appropriate?
>
> What about supporting "negative" overlays (so an overlay, that
> removes DT entries)? That way one could reverse apply an overlay.
> All the dependency stuff would basically be the users problem.  The
> kernel only checks if it can apply an overlay (and return some error
> code if it can't). This this code is needed anyway to check the
> input from userspace.

Does that mean that I would need to describe such a negative overlay
for each overlay to be able to get it removed ?

This would introduce an endless source of problems with bad "reverse"
overlay descriptions. Sure, that would "be the users problem",
but I don't think that would make it better.

Guenter

--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/