Re: [RFC PATCH 0/9] dt: dependencies (for deterministic driver initialization order based on the DT)

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 




On Thu, Aug 21, 2014 at 08:19:00PM +0100, Alexander Holler wrote:
> Am 21.08.2014 16:02, schrieb Thierry Reding:
> 
> > Anyway, those are all fairly standard reasons for where deferred probe
> > triggers, and since I do like deferred probe for it's simplicity and
> > reliability I'd rather not try to work around it if boot time is all
> > that people are concerned about.
> 
> It's neither simple nor reliable. It's non deterministic brutforcing 
> while making it almost impossible to identify real errors.

It's horrible, yes.

> In my humble opinion the worst way to solve something. I'm pretty sure 
> if I would have suggest such a solution, the maintainer crowd would have 
> eaten me without cooking.

We didn't have a better workable solution at the time. Having a hack
that got boards booting was considered better than not having them boot.
I don't remember people being particularly enthralled by the idea.

Thanks,
Mark.
--
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




[Index of Archives]     [Device Tree Compilter]     [Device Tree Spec]     [Linux Driver Backports]     [Video for Linux]     [Linux USB Devel]     [Linux PCI Devel]     [Linux Audio Users]     [Linux Kernel]     [Linux SCSI]     [XFree86]     [Yosemite Backpacking]
  Powered by Linux