Re: "status" property checks

2010-01-08 Thread Hollis Blanchard
On Sat, 2010-01-09 at 10:46 +1100, David Gibson wrote: > On Fri, Jan 08, 2010 at 11:45:28AM -0800, Hollis Blanchard wrote: > > On Fri, 2010-01-08 at 13:28 -0600, Scott Wood wrote: > > > Hollis Blanchard wrote: > > > > On Thu, 2010-01-07 at 20:35 -0600, Hunter Cobbs wrote: > > > >> I think that is d

Re: "status" property checks

2010-01-08 Thread David Gibson
On Fri, Jan 08, 2010 at 11:45:28AM -0800, Hollis Blanchard wrote: > On Fri, 2010-01-08 at 13:28 -0600, Scott Wood wrote: > > Hollis Blanchard wrote: > > > On Thu, 2010-01-07 at 20:35 -0600, Hunter Cobbs wrote: > > >> I think that is definitely a solution. It does centralize the testing > > >> for

Re: "status" property checks

2010-01-08 Thread Hollis Blanchard
On Fri, 2010-01-08 at 13:28 -0600, Scott Wood wrote: > Hollis Blanchard wrote: > > On Thu, 2010-01-07 at 20:35 -0600, Hunter Cobbs wrote: > >> I think that is definitely a solution. It does centralize the testing > >> for this particular issue. The only thing question I have is if its > >> really

Re: "status" property checks

2010-01-08 Thread Scott Wood
Hollis Blanchard wrote: On Thu, 2010-01-07 at 20:35 -0600, Hunter Cobbs wrote: I think that is definitely a solution. It does centralize the testing for this particular issue. The only thing question I have is if its really better to have the upper level do the check. Shouldn't the driver its

Re: "status" property checks

2010-01-08 Thread Hollis Blanchard
On Thu, 2010-01-07 at 20:35 -0600, Hunter Cobbs wrote: > I think that is definitely a solution. It does centralize the testing > for this particular issue. The only thing question I have is if its > really better to have the upper level do the check. Shouldn't the > driver itself handle the hard

Re: "status" property checks

2010-01-07 Thread Hunter Cobbs
I think that is definitely a solution. It does centralize the testing for this particular issue. The only thing question I have is if its really better to have the upper level do the check. Shouldn't the driver itself handle the hardware and device node status? On Thu, 2010-01-07 at 15:07 -0800

"status" property checks

2010-01-07 Thread Hollis Blanchard
Right now, a number of drivers honor the "status" property on device nodes (via of_device_is_available() checks), but it's open-coded in each driver. I'm thinking of "hiding" arbitrary devices from the kernel, and setting this property seems like the best approach, but at the moment that would requ