Re: [PATCH] arm64: dts: stingray: use NUM_SATA to configure number of sata ports

[Florian Fainelli]

On 06/12/2018 03:54 PM, Rob Herring wrote:
> On Thu, Jun 7, 2018 at 12:53 PM, Scott Branden
> <scott.branden@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>> Hi Rob,
>>
>> Could you please kindly comment on change below.
>>
>> It allows board variants to be added easily via a simple define for
>> different number of SATA ports.
>>
>>
>>
>> On 18-06-04 09:22 AM, Florian Fainelli wrote:
>>>
>>> On 05/18/2018 11:34 AM, Scott Branden wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Move remaining sata configuration to stingray-sata.dtsi and enable
>>>> ports based on NUM_SATA defined.
>>>> Now, all that needs to be done is define NUM_SATA per board.
>>>
>>> Rob could you review this and let us know if this approach is okay or
>>> not? Thank you!
>>>
>>>> Signed-off-by: Scott Branden <scott.branden@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
>>>> ---
> 
>>>> diff --git a/arch/arm64/boot/dts/broadcom/stingray/stingray-sata.dtsi
>>>> b/arch/arm64/boot/dts/broadcom/stingray/stingray-sata.dtsi
>>>> index 8c68e0c..7f6d176 100644
>>>> --- a/arch/arm64/boot/dts/broadcom/stingray/stingray-sata.dtsi
>>>> +++ b/arch/arm64/boot/dts/broadcom/stingray/stingray-sata.dtsi
>>>> @@ -43,7 +43,11 @@
>>>>                         interrupts = <GIC_SPI 321 IRQ_TYPE_LEVEL_HIGH>;
>>>>                         #address-cells = <1>;
>>>>                         #size-cells = <0>;
>>>> +#if (NUM_SATA > 0)
>>>> +                       status = "okay";
>>>> +#else
>>>>                         status = "disabled";
>>>> +#endif
> 
> This only works if ports are contiguously enabled (0-N). You might not
> care, but it is not a pattern that works in general. And I'm not a fan
> of C preprocessing in DT files in general beyond just defines for
> single numbers.

Should we interpret this as a formal NAK?
-- 
Florian