* Grant Likely | 2013-07-24 15:19:58 [+0100]: >> Was there more breakage than imx6 and amba devices? Your first version >> had a fallback case for powerpc. Couldn't we do just allow that for more >> than just powerpc? I'd much rather see some work-around within the core >> DT code with a warning to prevent more proliferation than putting this >> into drivers. > >It's tricky stuff. I've not figured out a solution I'm happy with. >Trying to figure out when to apply a work around is hard because the >resource reservation makes assumptions about the memory range layout >that doesn't match the assumptions made by device tree code. I can't really follow. Do you have a simple at hand? >One /possible/ option is to not add the resources to the devices at all >when the device is registered and instead resolve them right at bind >time. Jean Christophe proposed doing this already to solve a different >problem; obtaining resources that require other drivers to be probed >first. If the resources are resolved at .probe() time, then the resource >registration problem should also go away. > >The downside to that approach is that it makes each deferred probe more >expensive; potentially a *lot* more expensive depending on how much work >the xlate functions have to do. It would be worth prototyping though to >see how well it works. So you say defer the io ressources until the device-tree device is actually probed. I don't really understand why that defer part should solve the problem but I would try and see how it goes. Jean-Christophe proposed that only, that means no patches yet, right? >g. Sebastian -- 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
