[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <53FED13C.4070606@ahsoftware.de>
Date: Thu, 28 Aug 2014 08:50:36 +0200
From: Alexander Holler <holler@...oftware.de>
To: Stephen Warren <swarren@...dotorg.org>,
Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@....com>,
Grant Likely <grant.likely@...aro.org>
CC: Mark Rutland <Mark.Rutland@....com>,
"devicetree@...r.kernel.org" <devicetree@...r.kernel.org>,
Jon Loeliger <jdl@....com>,
Russell King <linux@....linux.org.uk>,
Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>,
Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Rob Herring <robh+dt@...nel.org>,
Thierry Reding <thierry.reding@...il.com>,
"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)
Am 27.08.2014 18:37, schrieb Stephen Warren:
> Of course, there are probably cases where we could/should add some more
> phandles/... and likewise cases where we shouldn't. That's why detailed
> research is needed.
Just because I'm curious, I wonder how this research does or shoud look
like.
Defered probes did come to light with 3.4, that was more than 2 years
ago. Ok, most people (like me) just noticed it during the last months
when they switched to DT and have run into a problem (the deferred probe
mechanism is an error-message killer), but some must have seen it
already 2 years ago.
And I wonder how the ACPI world solves that problem. My guess would be
hardcoded stuff in the firmware-blob (BIOS), just like it happened with
board files, but I've never seen BIOS code and my knowledge about ACPI
is almost zero. ;)
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