[Added Arnd Bergmann, Bartosz Golaszewski and Mark Brown] On 30/08/2018 10:48, Geert Uytterhoeven wrote: > Hi Daniel, [ ... ] >> Yeah, I got this point. But it is the meaning of your sentence: "... >> which causes issues with complex dependencies.". >> >> It is ambiguous *what* causes the issues. >> >> Did you meant an attempt was done to support EPROBE_DEFER with >> *_OF_DECLARE but caused too much issues with the complex dependencies? >> >> Or the current situation is causing too much issues with the complex >> dependencies? >> >> (I know the latter is true, it is about the meaning of the sentence). > > I meant the latter. > > AFAIK no attempt was done to support EPROBE_DEFER with *_OF_DECLARE. > IMHO it would be pointless, as it would be much easier to just switch to real > platform drivers. May be, may be not. >From your point of view, the change is simple because it touches only a single driver. >From my point of view, the change implies a split in the approach while I'm trying to unify the drivers little by little and there are hundred of them. It is not the first time we face this situation and Bartosz Golaszewski has a similar problem [1]. We have all the frameworks we need to solve this properly but I would like something we can propagate to all drivers (OF and !OF) so we end up with unified code. It is time we clearly state the dependency issues and we find a proper way to solve it. [1] https://lkml.org/lkml/2018/4/26/657 -- <http://www.linaro.org/> Linaro.org │ Open source software for ARM SoCs Follow Linaro: <http://www.facebook.com/pages/Linaro> Facebook | <http://twitter.com/#!/linaroorg> Twitter | <http://www.linaro.org/linaro-blog/> Blog
