On Wed, Jun 26, 2019 at 2:31 PM Rob Herring <robh+dt@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > On Mon, Jun 24, 2019 at 9:54 PM Greg Kroah-Hartman > <gregkh@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > On Mon, Jun 24, 2019 at 03:37:07PM -0700, Sandeep Patil wrote: > > > We are trying to make sure that all (most) drivers in an Aarch64 system can > > > be kernel modules for Android, like any other desktop system for > > > example. There are a number of problems we need to fix before that happens > > > ofcourse. > > > > I will argue that this is NOT an android-specific issue. If the goal of > > creating an arm64 kernel that will "just work" for a wide range of > > hardware configurations without rebuilding is going to happen, we need > > to solve this problem with DT. This goal was one of the original wishes > > of the arm64 development effort, let's not loose sight of it as > > obviously, this is not working properly just yet. > > I fail to see how the different Linux behavior between drivers > built-in and as modules has anything whatsoever to do with DT. You are right, built-in vs module problem is not a DT issue. But this is not so much a built-in vs module issue. It's just that built-in has a hack available that works sometimes. But really, both are broken. > Fix the > problems in Linux and use the dependencies that are already expressed > in DT and *then* we can talk about using DT to provide *hints* for > solving any remaining problems. Done. Sent v2 patch series that uses existing bindings. -Saravana
