On Thu, Oct 22, 2015 at 8:53 PM, Frank Rowand <frowand.list@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > I have been defaulting to the position that has been asserted by > the device tree maintainters, that probe deferrals work just fine > for at least the majority of cases (and is the message I have been > sharing in my conference presentations about device tree). But I > suspect that there is at least a small minority of cases that are not > well served by probe deferral. (Not to be read as an endorsement of > this specific patch series, just a generic observation.) Yep, once in a while people still stumble on obscure subsystems and drivers not supporting probe deferral. Usually they don't fail with a big bang, so everything seems fine. E.g. last week's "of_mdiobus_register_phy() and deferred probe" (https://lkml.org/lkml/2015/10/22/377). Gr{oetje,eeting}s, Geert -- Geert Uytterhoeven -- There's lots of Linux beyond ia32 -- geert@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx In personal conversations with technical people, I call myself a hacker. But when I'm talking to journalists I just say "programmer" or something like that. -- Linus Torvalds -- 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
