On 30/08/2018 09:54, Geert Uytterhoeven wrote: > Hi Daniel, > > On Wed, Aug 29, 2018 at 6:26 PM Daniel Lezcano > <daniel.lezcano@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: >> On 29/08/2018 17:44, Chris Brandt wrote: >>> On Wednesday, August 29, 2018 1, Daniel Lezcano wrote: >>>> Can the boot constraints [1] solve this issue instead of the changes you >>>> are proposing ? >>>> >>>> [1] https://lwn.net/Articles/747250/ >>> >>> Thanks for the suggestion, but... >>> >>> I grepped for "boot_constraint" and it shows up nowhere in the current >>> kernel. >>> >>> Also, this article was written Feb 16, 2018, and I can see that the >>> patch series was still being submitted (V7) as of Feb 23, 2018. >> >> Ah ok, fair enough, I thought it was merged. In any case, after thinking >> about it, it wouldn't have helped. >> >> My concern is if we can avoid changing the TIMER_OF_DECLARE because of >> the boot order, it would be better. >> >> Can returning EPROBE_DEFER fix this issue? Or use the 'complex >> dependencies' [1]? > > *_OF_DECLARE() is not compatible with EPROBE_DEFER, which causes > issues with complex dependencies. What causes issues ? Add support for EPROBE_DEFER with OF_DECLARE or not having support of it ? > That's exactly why many subsystems are moving away from it. > E.g. IOMMU_OF_DECLARE was removed in v4.19-rc1. Ok, thanks for information. -- <http://www.linaro.org/> Linaro.org │ Open source software for ARM SoCs Follow Linaro: <http://www.facebook.com/pages/Linaro> Facebook | <http://twitter.com/#!/linaroorg> Twitter | <http://www.linaro.org/linaro-blog/> Blog
