[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20151020140523.GA22021@kroah.com>
Date: Tue, 20 Oct 2015 07:05:23 -0700
From: Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>
To: Tomeu Vizoso <tomeu.vizoso@...labora.com>
Cc: Rob Herring <robh+dt@...nel.org>,
"devicetree@...r.kernel.org" <devicetree@...r.kernel.org>,
"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] driver core: Disable late probes by default
On Tue, Oct 20, 2015 at 09:40:48AM +0200, Tomeu Vizoso wrote:
> On 19 October 2015 at 17:19, Greg Kroah-Hartman
> <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org> wrote:
> > On Mon, Oct 19, 2015 at 05:13:22PM +0200, Tomeu Vizoso wrote:
> >> To smooth the transition to late probes, make disabled the default for
> >> DELAY_DEVICE_PROBES and let individual SoCs enable the option as they
> >> get fixed.
> >>
> >> Signed-off-by: Tomeu Vizoso <tomeu.vizoso@...labora.com>
> >> Link: https://lkml.kernel.org/g/20151016181129.GA1764@gradator.net
> >>
> >> ---
> >>
> >> Hi Rob,
> >>
> >> I'm sending this in case you think it would be best to leave the
> >> on-demand probe series in -next for now but have late probes disabled to
> >> avoid hassle to some people.
> >
> > I would like Rob to just drop this series please, I don't agree with it
> > at all at the moment.
>
> Hi Greg,
>
> is it the case that you are satisfied with deferred probes as a way of
> ordering device probing and that I should look at how to solve my
> problem by improving it?
Yes, especially given that you have said this does not speed up your
boot times, which I thought was your main goal here :(
If deferred probes doesn't work well, we can fix it, but for now it
seems our best option.
thanks,
greg k-h
--
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