Messages in this thread | | | Subject | Re: [RFC PATCH 0/9] dt: dependencies (for deterministic driver initialization order based on the DT) | Date | Mon, 25 Aug 2014 08:08:59 -0500 | From | Jon Loeliger <> |
| |
>
> Anyway, instead of going back and forth between "deferred probe is good" > and "deferred probe is bad", how about we do something useful now and > concentrate on how to make use of the information we have in DT with the > goal to reduce the number of cases where deferred probing is required?
Good idea.
The proposal on the table is to allow the probe code to make a topological sort of the devices based on dependency information either implied, explicitly stated or both. That is likely a fundamentally correct approach.
I believe some of the issues that need to be resolved are:
1) What constitutes a dependency? 2) How is that dependency expressed? 3) How do we add missing dependencies? 4) Backward compatability problems.
There are other questions, of course. Is it a topsort per bus? Are there required "early devices"? Should the inter-node dependencies be expressed at each node, or in a separate hierarchy within the DTS? Others.
HTH, jdl
| |