On Wed, Oct 20, 2010 at 03:22:17PM -0700, John Bonesio wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I have attached the two file I've used to test the new syntax from my
> patch set. These might help get a feel for how the syntax and the
> features work.
[snip]
> /include/ "mpc5200b.dtsi"
>
> / {
> model = "fsl,media5200";
> compatible = "fsl,media5200";
>
> aliases {
> console = &psc6;
> ethernet0 = ð0;
> };
>
> chosen {
> linux,stdout-path = &psc6;
> };
>
> memory {
> reg = <0x00000000 0x08000000>; // 128MB RAM
> };
> };
>
> &powerpc {
> timebase-frequency = <33000000>; // 33 MHz, these were
> configured by U-Boot
> bus-frequency = <132000000>; // 132 MHz
> clock-frequency = <396000000>; // 396 MHz
> };
>
> &soc {
> bus-frequency = <132000000>;// 132 MHz
> };
>
> &usb {
> reg = <0x1000 0x100>;
> };
>
> /remove-node/ &psc1;
> /remove-node/ &psc2;
> /remove-node/ &{soc/ser...@2400}; /* an example of using a
> label rooted path */
> /remove-node/ &{/soc5...@f0000000/ser...@2600}; /* an example of using the
> path instead of the label */
> /remove-node/ &psc5;
So, this is the only concrete example for the use of /remove-node/
I've seen so far. And it's not a really good one. It appears you're
just removing a bunch of serial nodes from the SoC template,
presumably because they're unused / disconnected on this specific
board.
But you can managed unused devices from the SoC with existing syntax
by adding a status = "disabled" property to the node. And I'd argue
that having the node present but disabled *more* accurately represents
the hardware for a disconnected ASIC than removing it entirely.
So, what's a genuine use for /remove-node/ that can't be done already?
--
David Gibson | I'll have my music baroque, and my code
david AT gibson.dropbear.id.au | minimalist, thank you. NOT _the_ _other_
| _way_ _around_!
http://www.ozlabs.org/~dgibson
_______________________________________________
devicetree-discuss mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.ozlabs.org/listinfo/devicetree-discuss
