[U-Boot] fdtgrep exclude nodes

[Simon Glass]

Hi Stefan,

On 1 December 2015 at 05:31, Stefan Roese <sr at denx.de> wrote:
> On 01.12.2015 14:22, Michal Simek wrote:
>>
>> On 1.12.2015 11:46, Stefan Roese wrote:
>>>
>>> Hi Michal,
>>>
>>> On 01.12.2015 11:21, Michal Simek wrote:
>>>>
>>>> I was checking spl/u-boot-spl.dtb and I see that you are removing
>>>> interrupt-parent property but I think that also make sense to remove
>>>> interrupt property as well because it is unused and parent is also
>>>> removed.
>>>> Just extend OF_SPL_REMOVE_PROPS by "interrupts" to save some memory.
>>>
>>>
>>> I'm fine with this.
>>>
>>>> Another thing I was checking was that we are missing rules for removing
>>>> nodes with status = "disabled" property. I think that will be good to
>>>> add it. The reason is that I would move all that u-boot,dm-pre-reloc to
>>>> dtsi at least for now.
>>>
>>>
>>> Hmmm. I prefer to add this "u-boot,dm-pre-reloc" to the board dts
>>> file instead of using the dtsi files. At least for the real devices,
>>> like UART etc. As they vary between the different boards.
>>
>>
>> How do you handle if you have 2 uarts which one is primary one?
>> That only one has dm-pre-reloc? Or are you using aliases?
>
>
> I only mark the devices absolutely necessary in SPL for booting
> with dm-pre-reloc. And that only one UART, one SPI NOR etc.
> And yes, I'm also using aliases.
>
>>
>>> Perhaps its possible to enable those busses (simple-bus) needed
>>> to traverse to the requested device automatically via fdtgrep?
>>> That would make this much easier and less error-prone. And would
>>> result in less "u-boot,dm-pre-reloc" occurances in the dts / dtsi
>>> files.
>>
>>
>> I still think that instead of putting this property to every node having
>> one property with list of devices in chosen node is better way.
>
>
> Yes, that would also be a good solution. Sprinkling these pre-reloc
> properties all over the files and nodes / busses is definitely
> not perfect.

This has come up before.

I can see pros and cons, but it's not clear to me that one way is
better than the other. I am concerned that we use the 'best' way to
avoid increasing amounts of rework later if we change the approach.

If someone is willing to sketch out how it would be implemented with a
single property (e.g. on a new thread) then that would help continue
the discussion.

Regards,
Simon