On Thu, Aug 22, 2013 at 9:00 AM, Jean-Francois Moine <moinejf@xxxxxxx> wrote: > On Tue, 20 Aug 2013 11:13:24 +0100 > Grant Likely <grant.likely@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > >> On Tue, Aug 20, 2013 at 11:01 AM, Jean-Francois Moine <moinejf@xxxxxxx> wrote: >> > This patch populates the platform from the device tree into two steps: >> > the first step creates the nodes that are referenced by a phandle, >> > the second step creates the other nodes. >> > >> > This permits to reduce the number of PROBE_DEFERs. >> > >> > Signed-off-by: Jean-Francois Moine <moinejf@xxxxxxx> >> > --- >> > A better way to reduce probe deferral could be sorting the nodes >> > according to their phandle level in the DT blob at compilation time ... >> >> Have you got measurements or statistics that show this making a >> difference? I suspect you'll find for boot time it will have little to >> no affect since the device driver probe order is more closely related >> to the kernel link order than the order that devices were registered. > > With the device tree and most drivers as modules, the kernel link order > does not matter. > > I admit that the gain may be small: I just get none or just one probe > deferral instead of 3 on my cubox with this patch. If you've only got 3 probe deferrals, then is this really an issue worth complicating the code over? I'd like to see a more significant impact before taking this step. g. -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe devicetree" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
