[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <53F64624.5000403@ahsoftware.de>
Date: Thu, 21 Aug 2014 21:19:00 +0200
From: Alexander Holler <holler@...oftware.de>
To: Thierry Reding <thierry.reding@...il.com>,
Grant Likely <grant.likely@...aro.org>
CC: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, devicetree@...r.kernel.org,
Jon Loeliger <jdl@....com>,
Russell King <linux@....linux.org.uk>,
Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
Rob Herring <robh+dt@...nel.org>,
Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>,
linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH 0/9] dt: dependencies (for deterministic driver initialization
order based on the DT)
Am 21.08.2014 16:02, schrieb Thierry Reding:
> Anyway, those are all fairly standard reasons for where deferred probe
> triggers, and since I do like deferred probe for it's simplicity and
> reliability I'd rather not try to work around it if boot time is all
> that people are concerned about.
It's neither simple nor reliable. It's non deterministic brutforcing
while making it almost impossible to identify real errors.
In my humble opinion the worst way to solve something. I'm pretty sure
if I would have suggest such a solution, the maintainer crowd would have
eaten me without cooking.
Regards,
Alexander Holler
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists