[PATCH RFC] Specifying default-disabled devices

[Jeremy Kerr]

Hi Zev,

> I'd like to hear people's thoughts on how to approach specifying that
> a device is present, but should be left alone by default.

Sounds good!

> The other alternative I've considered (though not actually implemented
> thus far) is to start using the "reserved" status value defined in the
> device-tree spec (section 2.3.4, [0]) to mean this

I'd prefer this approach - it seems quite neat, and means we can keep
the hardware definitions together.

Do you have thoughts about how you'd then un- and re-reserve the device?

Cheers,


Jeremy