On Sat, Oct 08, 2011 at 08:55:02AM -0700, Greg KH wrote: > On Fri, Oct 07, 2011 at 09:03:51PM -0700, Josh Triplett wrote: > > On Fri, Oct 07, 2011 at 02:23:26PM -0700, Greg KH wrote: > > > On Fri, Oct 07, 2011 at 01:57:15PM -0700, Josh Triplett wrote: > > > > On Thu, Oct 06, 2011 at 11:49:28PM -0700, Greg KH wrote: > > > > > On Fri, Oct 07, 2011 at 10:33:07AM +0500, G, Manjunath Kondaiah wrote: > > > > > > +config PROBE_DEFER > > > > > > + bool "Deferred Driver Probe" > > > > > > + default y > > > > > > + help > > > > > > + This option provides deferring driver probe if it has dependency on > > > > > > + other driver. Without this feature, initcall ordering should be done > > > > > > + manually to resolve driver dependencies. This feature completely side > > > > > > + steps the issues by allowing driver registration to occur in any > > > > > > + order, and any driver can request to be retried after a few more other > > > > > > + drivers get probed. > > > > > > > > > > Why is this even an option? Why would you ever want it disabled? Why > > > > > does it need to be selected? > > > > > > > > > > If you are going to default something to 'y' then just make it so it > > > > > can't be turned off any other way by just not making it an option at > > > > > all. > > > > > > > > Given that the drivers which use this mechanism will not necessarily get > > > > built into the kernel, I'd suggest that it should remain optional and > > > > default to n. Those drivers can then add a dependency on PROBE_DEFER. > > > > Let's try to avoid adding more infrastructure to the kernel that takes > > > > up space even when unused; certainly embedded will appreciate not having > > > > this feature unless a driver needs it. > > > > > > How much extra space is this "feature" really? > > > > Just checked: 776 bytes, 640 of text and 136 of data. We have kconfig > > options for comparable amounts. > > > > > I don't see it being > > > anything larger than the amount of memory increase that just happened as > > > I typed this email as part of the ongoing memory density changes. > > > > I don't know about the changes you mean > > Moore's law. Ah, I see. For new systems, sure; for systems or mechanisms with a pre-existing size constraint, that doesn't help. > Really, 776 bytes, just always enable it, it's not worth it. 776 bytes alone, no; 776 bytes times the next (or previous) thousand features, yes. - Josh Triplett -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-omap" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
