Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 23.128.96.18 as permitted sender) client-ip=23.128.96.18;
MIME-Version: 1.0
From:   Sven Van Asbroeck <thesven73@gmail.com>
Date:   Thu, 16 Apr 2020 10:46:58 -0400
Message-ID: <CAGngYiVa9v9jGPNu4W+KHUnvemKU-BVE89-XNLcWOmoZjAPMTg@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: [Q] devicetree overlays
To:     Pantelis Antoniou <pantelis.antoniou@konsulko.com>,
        Frank Rowand <frowand.list@gmail.com>
Cc:     David Airlie <airlied@linux.ie>, Daniel Vetter <daniel@ffwll.ch>,
        devicetree <devicetree@vger.kernel.org>,
        Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

Pantelis, Frank,

A quick question about the state of devicetree overlays. There don't seem to
be many in-kernel overlay users (rcar and fpga only?). Does it make sense for
new projects to use them?

My situation is this: I have hardware which consists of several modules.
Knowledge about the type and location of these modules is located in an
on-board eeprom.

So now I need to assemble a devicetree, by puzzling various 'blobs' together.
This could be done in the bootloader, but also by a rcar-like driver, which
queries the eeprom and inserts devicetree fragments/overlays into a live kernel.

A couple of questions:
- are devicetree overlays here to stay? (given that there are 2 in-kernel users)
- does it make sense to solve the modular devicetree problem in a rcar-like
  fashion?
- is there perhaps a more canonical / idiomatic way to solve this?

Sven