> > Anyway, instead of going back and forth between "deferred probe is good" > and "deferred probe is bad", how about we do something useful now and > concentrate on how to make use of the information we have in DT with the > goal to reduce the number of cases where deferred probing is required? Good idea. The proposal on the table is to allow the probe code to make a topological sort of the devices based on dependency information either implied, explicitly stated or both. That is likely a fundamentally correct approach. I believe some of the issues that need to be resolved are: 1) What constitutes a dependency? 2) How is that dependency expressed? 3) How do we add missing dependencies? 4) Backward compatability problems. There are other questions, of course. Is it a topsort per bus? Are there required "early devices"? Should the inter-node dependencies be expressed at each node, or in a separate hierarchy within the DTS? Others. HTH, jdl -- 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