lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2014]   [May]   [14]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
From
SubjectRe: [PATCH v4 2/8] OF: Introduce DT overlay support.
Date
On Wed, 14 May 2014 14:11:52 +0200, Michael Stickel <ms@mycable.de> wrote:
> Hi Grant,
>
> Am 14.05.2014 12:08, schrieb Grant Likely:
> > More generally I am concerned about whether or not overlays
> > will introduce corner cases that can never be handled correctly,
> > particularly in how multiple overlays will get handled. I want to see
> > very clear rules on what happens when multiple overlays are applied, and
> > then removed again. Is it possible to remove overlays out of order? If
> > so, what are the conditions that would not be allowed?
>
> Yes, it is possible that an overlay depends on another.
>
> The problem is not, that an overlay is removed other overlays depend on,
> but that nodes of an overlay may depend on the to-be-removed overlay and
> the resulting devicetree can become inconsistent.

So what should the rule be then? It sounds to me that it should be a
hard and fast rule for overlays to always be removed in-order. If two
overlays are applied, and the first one needs to be removed again, then
that forces a removal of the second. The code needs to enforce it too.

The question can be revisited if someone can find a way to validate
overlays do not conflict.

g.



\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2014-05-14 18:21    [W:0.125 / U:0.180 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site