On Mon, Sep 07, 2015 at 02:31:06PM +0200, Tomeu Vizoso wrote: > On 11 August 2015 at 11:37, Tomeu Vizoso <tomeu.vizoso@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > On 7 August 2015 at 14:19, Mark Brown <broonie@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > >> This sounds like it's going to break in the case where we have MFDs that > >> represent their functions in DT (not a pattern I'm a fan of but it's a > >> thing people do). We'll walk back to the platform device for the MFD > >> function, try to probe it and then give up. Perhaps that's good enough > >> anyway but it's not clear to me why we don't just try every parent we > >> find? > > Agreed. In the attempt at probing dependencies before a device is > > probed, I considered that a device's parent is also a dependency and > Actually I'm not sure how we could probe the ascendants on demand, as > currently the parent's device lock is taken when probing so trying to > probe a sibling from within a probe callback will cause a deadlock. How do silbilings come into this? There is an issue there but it's going to happen anyway. > AFAICS this is only needed for USB interface devices and this > behaviour could be limited to them, but I don't like much assuming > that no USB device will ever have a dependency on a sibling (though > that probably won't happen ever). I don't see the connection with USB here, sorry - my initial thought was about MFDs?
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
