Am 24.04.2015 um 16:47 schrieb Tomeu Vizoso: > Hi, > > while reading the thread [0] that Alexander Holler started with his series to make probing order deterministic, it occurred to me that it should be possible to achieve the same by probing devices as they are referenced by other devices. > > This basically reuses the information that is already embedded in the probe() implementations, saving us from refactoring existing drivers or adding information to DTBs. > > The main issue I see is that the registration code path in some subsystems may not be reentrant, so some refactoring of the locking will be needed. In my testing I have found this problem with regulators, as the supply of a regulator might end up being registered during the registration of the first one. > > Something I'm not completely happy with is that I have had to move the population of the device tree after all platform drivers have been registered. Otherwise I don't see how I could register drivers on demand as we don't have yet each driver's compatible strings. > > I have done my testing on a Tegra124-based Chromebook, and these patches were enough to eliminate all the deferred probes. First you have to solve a problem which is totally unrelated to DT or ACPI or x86 or ARM: I think as long as drivers don't register themself whithout any side effect, this problem isn't solvable. In order to make an ordered list of drivers to start, you need to know which drivers are actually available. And also drivers are registering themself with their initcall, they might do an awfull lot of stuff besides just registering themself. That means several drivers already have prerequisites and dependcies for their initcall. That means you can't just call their initcall to get and idea of which driver an initcall is even part of. That ends up with the fact that you just don't have a list of drivers you can sort, based on whatever algorithm you might have in mind. I've tried to solve that problem with marking drivers which don't have any prerequisits (and side effects) as "well done". The patch which did that was 5/9 in my series, this one: https://lkml.org/lkml/2014/5/12/414 Unfortunately nobody seemed really interested and without one of the few "big guys" in your pocket, it's absolutely impossible to get such changes into the kernel. Not to speak about all the unavoidable discussions about absolutely silly things. But maybe I'm the problem here. No idea. I wish you more luck than I had in the past two or three years. 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
