On Wed, Mar 04, 2015 at 05:46:25PM -0800, Stephen Boyd wrote: > On 03/04/15 16:30, Mark Brown wrote: > > On Wed, Mar 04, 2015 at 11:35:43AM -0800, Stephen Boyd wrote: > > Dependency resolution isn't anything new, I'm not sure why you think > > this is related to of_parse_cb()? Open coding does exactly the same > I was just using of_parse_cb to indicate the difference from > of_regulator_match(). I could have said "between your design and my design". Please do things like that - it makes things harder to follow if people throw in random unrelated terms for things. > > of. There was a proposal quite recently from someone at Samsung Poland > > to do something more coreish and basically split registrations in two, > > one half registering the things needed for each resource and then a > > second half which runs once the required resources are registered. > > Pushing that along might be best, it's a more general approach. The > > component stuff Russell did has some similarities here. > Ah you're talking about the res track stuff[1]? That patchset seemed to > be doing a *lot* of different stuff where probe defer was just a part of > it. Frmo what I recall that still operates on the device level, where > here we want to be able to say that a particular regulator needs another > resource, but it's ok to register it's sibling regulator within this > device because that regulator doesn't need anything. Are you saying you > want the restrack stuff to work at the regulator level? If we went that > way we could do the same thing in the clock framework and get rid of the > orphan list and rely on the notifications from restrack to figure out > when a clock resource becomes fully available. Yes, that's it. It's not quite the same thing as registering individual resources and there are definite issues to be addressed but I think it's a promising approach for addressing the deferred probe problem in a more elegant way.
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
