Am 14.05.2014 16:49, schrieb Alexander Holler:
Am 14.05.2014 16:05, schrieb Grant Likely:
On Mon, 12 May 2014 18:47:53 +0200, Alexander Holler
<holler@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Personally, I think the parts of this patch that manipulate the device
registration
order is entirely the wrong way to handle it. If anything, I would say
continue to register the devices, even if the dependencies are unmet.
(...)
How does the dependency code decide which devices can be
platform_devices? It's not clear to me from what I've read so far.
Dependencies currently are only considered on stuff which has a
"compatibility" property, thus drivers. I wanted to get the drivers
loaded in order, not really caring for devices. Let me quote from
(outdated) ldd3:
"For the most part, the Linux device model code takes care of all these
considerations without imposing itself upon driver authors. It sits
mostly in the background; direct interaction with the device model is
generally handled by bus-level logic and various other kernel
subsystems. As a result, many driver authors can ignore the device model
entirely, and trust it to take care of itself."
So do I. ;)
To explain a bit further, I've started with totally ignoring the device
model just careing for the order in why drivers will be initialized.
Than the device model did come into my way. ;)
But it isn't any problem at all to extend the stuff to care for devices.
That even would reduce some code in dtc with the disadvantage that the
sizes of blobs will slightly increase a bit more, because they then
would include dependencies to devices too (instead of just dependencies
between drivers).
So I'm absolutely open here. If using dependencies between devices is
necessary or has advantages, that could be changed with changing a few
lines.
Regards,
Alexander Holler
--
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
