On Thu, 13 Oct 2011, Ming Lei wrote: > >> Inside device_add(), device_pm_add is called before bus_probe_device, > >> so the patch can't change the device order in pm list, and just change > >> the driver probe order. > > > > That's the way it works now, but can it be reworked? �It would be > > IMO, it depends on what shape you plan to rework. Currently, the > deferred probe may found a resource dependency, but I am not sure > that pm dependency is same with the resource dependency found > during probe. > > > possible to adjust the list order after successful probe. �However, > > I'm not clear on the ordering rules for the dpm_list. �Right now it is > > explicitly ordered to have parents before children, but as already > > expressed, that doesn't accurately represent ordering constraints for > > multiple device dependancies. > > Maybe we should understand the correct model of the ordering constraints > for the multiple device dependancies first, could you give a description or > some examples about it? The requirement is that devices must be capable of resuming in the order given by dpm_list, and they must be capable of suspending in the reverse order. Therefore if device A can't work unless device B is functional, then B must come before A in dpm_list. Alan Stern -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-mmc" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
