Jack Miller <j...@codezen.org> writes: > On Wed, Aug 03, 2016 at 05:16:34PM +1000, Michael Ellerman wrote: >> We could instead just search for all nodes that are compatible with >> "ibm,opal-flash". We do that for i2c, see opal_i2c_create_devs(). >> >> Is there a particular reason not to do that? > > I'm actually surprised that this is preferred. Jeremy mentioned something > similar, but I guess I just don't like the idea of finding devices in weird > places in the tree.
But where is "weird". Arguably "/opal/flash" is weird. What does it mean? There's a bus called "opal" and a device on it called "flash"? No. Point being the structure is fairly arbitrary, or at least debatable, so tying the code 100% to the structure is inflexible. As we have discovered. Our other option is to tell skiboot to get stuffed, and leave the flash node where it was on P8. > Then again, if we can't trust the DT we're in bigger > trouble than erroneous flash nodes =). Quite :) > If we really just want to find compatible nodes anywhere, let's simplify i2c > and pdev_init into one function and make that behavior consistent with this > new patch. That seems OK to me. We should get an ack from Stewart though for the other node types. cheers _______________________________________________ Linuxppc-dev mailing list Linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org https://lists.ozlabs.org/listinfo/linuxppc-dev
