On Fri, Jul 17, 2015 at 01:41:16AM +0200, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote: > On Thu, Jul 16, 2015 at 10:23 PM, Mark Brown <broonie@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > On Wed, Jul 01, 2015 at 11:40:56AM +0200, Tomeu Vizoso wrote: > > I have to say I'm still not 100% clear that special casing platform > > devices makes sense here - I can see that platform devices are usually > > the first devices to instantiate but there are other kinds of devices > > and it's not obvious what the benefit of specifically picking out > > platform devices as opposed to just deferring all devices is. > Some existing devices cannot be deferred without redesigning things quite a bit. OK, that should go in the changelog then - right now it's just a bit obtuse why we're doing this (and as you say it's a bit awkward). Now you mention this I'm thinking that some of the affected devices might be platform devices on some systems, IOMMUs spring to mind for example... they're one of the main bits of the system I'm aware of that still rely on probe ordering and they do tend to be platform devices. > What I was talking about, though, was to use an opt-in mechanism for > that which could be set for all platform devices, for example, by > default, but it might be set for other bus types too if that's useful. Sure, I got that and do agree with you that a mechanism like you suggest would be good. I just wasn't clear why we were targetting platform devices in the first place.
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
