[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20140822131919.GX21734@leverpostej>
Date: Fri, 22 Aug 2014 14:19:19 +0100
From: Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@....com>
To: Alexander Holler <holler@...oftware.de>
Cc: Thierry Reding <thierry.reding@...il.com>,
"grant.likely@...aro.org" <grant.likely@...aro.org>,
"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
"devicetree@...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"
<linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org>
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH 0/9] dt: dependencies (for deterministic driver
initialization order based on the DT)
On Thu, Aug 21, 2014 at 08:19:00PM +0100, Alexander Holler wrote:
> 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.
It's horrible, yes.
> 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.
We didn't have a better workable solution at the time. Having a hack
that got boards booting was considered better than not having them boot.
I don't remember people being particularly enthralled by the idea.
Thanks,
Mark.
--
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