[U-Boot] [PATCH 1/2] dm: core: allow drivers to refuse to bind

[Simon Glass]

On 4 May 2016 at 14:09, Simon Glass <sjg at chromium.org> wrote:
> Hi Stephen,
>
> On 4 May 2016 at 14:02, Stephen Warren <swarren at wwwdotorg.org> wrote:
>> On 05/04/2016 01:48 PM, Simon Glass wrote:
>>>
>>> +Tom Rini
>>>
>>> Hi Stephen,
>>>
>>> On 4 May 2016 at 13:46, Stephen Warren <swarren at wwwdotorg.org> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> On 05/04/2016 01:31 PM, Simon Glass wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Hi Stephen,
>>>>>
>>>>> On 4 May 2016 at 12:57, Stephen Warren <swarren at wwwdotorg.org> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On 04/19/2016 04:19 PM, Stephen Warren wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> From: Stephen Warren <swarren at nvidia.com>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> In some cases, drivers may not want to bind to a device. Allow bind()
>>>>>>> to
>>>>>>> return -ENODEV in this case, and don't treat this as an error. This
>>>>>>> can
>>>>>>> be useful in situations where some information source other than the
>>>>>>> DT
>>>>>>> node's main status property indicates whether the device should be
>>>>>>> enabled, for example other DT properties might indicate this, or the
>>>>>>> driver might query non-DT sources such as system fuses or a version
>>>>>>> number
>>>>>>> register.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Simon, this series is assigned to you in patchwork. Are you the right
>>>>>> person
>>>>>> to apply it?
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Yes. but not for this release, right?
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Patch 2 in the series (which depends on this patch) fixes a bug for Tegra
>>>> boards with LCD panels. Admittedly it appears to be only cosmetic (an
>>>> error
>>>> message is printed at boot), but "it's a bug" seems to satisfy the
>>>> requirement to apply it for this release.
>>>
>>>
>>> Sorry, I didn't know that. Given the core nature of this patch I would
>>> rather wait, and apply it next week. Let me know if you disagree.
>>
>>
>> I suppose that it's been broken long enough that another release won't
>> matter.
>>
>> Was my explanation of the bug in the description of patch 2/2 not clear in
>> some way?
>
> Looks good to me. Were you expecting me to apply both as a bug fix? If
> so I'd prefer to have Tom Warren's ACK. Even so, a core patch like
> this really needs the full test cycle IMO.
>
> Regards,
> Simon

Applied to u-boot-dm, thanks!