On Sat, Oct 17, 2015 at 08:47:09AM -0700, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote: > On Sat, Oct 17, 2015 at 10:04:55AM -0500, Rob Herring wrote: > > I think Linus W, Mark B, and I all said a similar thing initially in > > that dependencies should be handled in the driver core. We went down > > the path of making this not firmware (aka bus) specific and an earlier > > version had just that (with fwnode_* calls). That turned out to be > > pointless as the calling locations were almost always in DT specific > > code anyway. If you notice, the calls are next to other DT specific > > calls generally (usually a "get"). So yes, I'd prefer not to have to > > touch every subsystem, but we had to do that anyway to add DT support. > If they are "next" to a call like that, why not put it in that call? I > really object to having to "sprinkle" this all over the kernel, for no > obvious reason why that is happening at all (look at the USB patch for > one such example.) I did ask that question myself IIRC - we could probably get a long way by trying to instantiate anything that looks probable when we do a phandle lookup on it.
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
