On Sun, Oct 25, 2015 at 02:54:39PM +0100, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote: > On Sun, Oct 25, 2015 at 12:06 AM, Mark Brown <broonie@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > There's also the understanding people had that the order things get > > bound changes the ordering for some of the other cases (perhaps it's a > > good idea to do that, it seems likely to be sensible?). > But it really doesn't do that. Also making it do so doesn't help much > in the cases where things can happen asynchronously (system > suspend/resume, runtime PM). Yeah, people seem to have that impression though. :( > If, instead, there was a way to specify a functional dependency at the > device registration time, it might be used to change the order of > everything relevant, including probe. That should help to reduce the > noise you're referring to. This links back to the idea of having generic support for pre-probe actions which is also generally useful (the ability to do things like power on regulators for devices on enumerable buses so they can be enumerated as standard).
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
_______________________________________________ dri-devel mailing list dri-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/dri-devel
