Hi Kory, On Mon, 13 Oct 2025 at 13:45, Kory Maincent <[email protected]> wrote: > > On Sat, 11 Oct 2025 08:20:58 +0100 > Simon Glass <[email protected]> wrote: > > > Hi Kory, > > > > On Fri, 10 Oct 2025 at 14:35, Kory Maincent <[email protected]> > > wrote: > > > > > > On Fri, 10 Oct 2025 12:13:11 +0100 > > > Simon Glass <[email protected]> wrote: > > ... > > > > > > +/** > > > > > + * dm_extension_apply - Apply extension board overlay to the > > > > > devicetree > > > > > + * @extension_num: Extension number to be applied > > > > > + * Return: Zero on success, negative on failure. > > > > > + */ > > > > > +int dm_extension_apply(int extension_num); > > > > > > > > The uclass should have a method like apply(struct uclass *dev, int > > > > extension_num). Is the numbering global across all devices? > > > > > > We currently support only one extension driver loaded at a time, therefore > > > we don't currently need this uclass parameter. > > > We will change the API when we will have several scan method possible at > > > the > > > same time but I can't test it for now. I don't think we will have such > > > cases > > > soon and maybe the devicetree WIP support will be ok at that time. > > > > OK, I hadn't picked that up but it makes sense. We can always change > > it later, as you say. But I would like to see an apply() method in > > extension_ops, so that it actually looks like a driver. > > Are you sure adding an apply ops method make sense? It is not something driver > or board specific. Do you want to have an apply driver ops set to the same > generic apply function for all drivers?
I don't mind. I'll leave it to you. Regards, Simon
