On Wed, Mar 18, 2009 at 03:35:11PM -0500, Scott Wood wrote:
> Anton Vorontsov wrote:
>> On Wed, Mar 18, 2009 at 03:31:29PM -0500, Scott Wood wrote:
>>> Anton Vorontsov wrote:
>>>> On Wed, Mar 18, 2009 at 11:23:44PM +0300, Anton Vorontsov wrote:
>>>>> I don't see any better solution, should I just leave the core1's
>>>>> mdio node intact?
>>>> Ah. We also could change compatible entry to "fsl,gianfar-slave".
>>>> This will prevent gianfar MAC driver to probe on core1.
>>> ...and also prevent it from probing the children, unless simple-bus
>>> is specified, or Linux is given special knowledge of the
>>> "fsl,gianfar-slave" name.
>>
>> Yup. Do you see any problem with this?
>
> Yes, the mdio node would not get probed. Why put it in the device tree
> at all then?
I mean do you see any problem with giving Linux knowledge of
the -slave name?
p.s.
Actually, we can stay with status = ".." property, and if
things ever change, it's always driver's duty to check for
of_device_is_available(), and so the driver can simply check
for
if (!strcmp(status, "disabled on core"))
probe_children_only().
--
Anton Vorontsov
email: cbouatmai...@gmail.com
irc://irc.freenode.net/bd2
_______________________________________________
Linuxppc-dev mailing list
Linuxppc-dev@ozlabs.org
https://ozlabs.org/mailman/listinfo/linuxppc-dev
