From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Hunter Cobbs Subject: Re: "status" property checks Date: Thu, 07 Jan 2010 20:35:43 -0600 Message-ID: <1262918143.2716.8.camel@ccs-laptop> References: <1262905673.11702.16.camel@localhost.localdomain> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: In-Reply-To: <1262905673.11702.16.camel@localhost.localdomain> List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: linuxppc-dev-bounces+glppe-linuxppc-embedded-2=m.gmane.org@lists.ozlabs.org Errors-To: linuxppc-dev-bounces+glppe-linuxppc-embedded-2=m.gmane.org@lists.ozlabs.org To: Hollis Blanchard Cc: devicetree-discuss@lists.ozlabs.org, linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org List-Id: devicetree@vger.kernel.org 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, Hollis Blanchard wrote: > 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 require modifying all OF drivers to check for it. > > Wouldn't the better approach be to have of_platform_device_probe() > itself do the check, and not call the driver's probe() routine if the > device isn't available? >