[PATCH RFC] Specifying default-disabled devices

[Jeremy Kerr]

Hi Zev,

> From some grepping around it looks like the only check is for
> "okay"/"ok", and nothing actually checks for "disabled", so I'd think
> any non-OK string (including "reserved") would end up being
> equivalent
> to "disabled", and hence result in the device node not being
> instantiated at all.  (A quick test appears to confirm; with status =
> "reserved", an attempt to bind via sysfs fails with ENODEV.)

Ah, so you still want the device created, but not bound?

That might not work for status = "reserved" then, and I'm not sure we
want to change the semantics for that.

Just so I'm following along correctly: you still need this described in
the DT (rather than instantiating entirely from userspace), because you
need additional platform data for the new device, is that correct?

Cheers,


Jeremy