Am 17.05.2014 14:16, schrieb Tomasz Figa:
References to phandles of parent or child nodes will not be added to this
property, because this information is already contained in the blob (in the
form of the tree itself).
I wonder if we shouldn't be including them too for consistency related
reasons, so we have all the necessary information in one place.
References to child nodes are great recipes for cycles, though...
No strong opinion, though, just an idea.
As said, they are already in the tree itself. And they are already
included in the graph (these are the black edges), so they just don't
appear in the property dependencies.
No dependencies to disabled nodes will be added.
Same here. IMHO it might be wise to let the parsing entity (e.g. kernel)
decide whether to ignore a dependency to disabled node or not.
Otherwise, I like the simplicity of compile-time dependency list
creation. Quite a nice work.
Thanks.
What's still questionable about the patches for dtc is if dependencies
to devices and not just drivers should be included in the new property
dependencies too. My current assumption is that all devices belonging to
one and the same driver don't have dependencies between each other. In
other words the order in which devices will be attached to one and the
same driver isn't important. If that assumption is correct it would be
possible to just attach all devices belonging to a driver after the
driver was loaded (also I haven't that done in my patches).
And thinking about that again, I think I was wrong and doing so have
been some kind of evil premature optimization I did in order to spare a
few dependencies/edges. But changing this can done by removing a few
lines in the code for dtc (patch 1).
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
