On 21-04-26 11:36, Ahmad Fatoum wrote: > Hi, > > On 26.04.21 11:20, Marco Felsch wrote: > >> How about changing BAREBOX_DEEP_PROBE_ENABLE so BAREBOX_DEEP_PROBE_ENABLE(physom_imx6_match); > >> works? Updated boards should be using board drivers anyway, so make it easier for them to > >> enable deep probe. > > > > Hi Ahmad, > > > > Why do I need to chnage it to board drivers if I only wanna fix a probe > > order issue? But you're right adding the _match table should be possible > > to :) > > Either you have board code at a single init level and changing to a board driver > will be very straight-forward. Or you have multiple initcalls, which expect > drivers at prior initcall levels to have probed a device, which will be broken > by a move to deep probe. > > >> I'd go even further and require board drivers by having it take a driver_d * as argument > >> and introduce deep_probe_board_driver() that expands to postcore_platform_driver and > >> BAREBOX_DEEP_PROBE_ENABLE. > > > > How about this: > > 1st) adding a probe_enum like kernel and introduce PROBE_PREFER_DEEP > > 2nd) adding a deep_probe_enable_board() function to common/deep_probe.c > > 3th) checking during register_driver() if the flag is set and call the > > deep_probe_enable_board(). > > > > This allows use to still use the macro mechanism and the boards already > > converted to the board driver style can use this simple enum to mark all > > boards as deep-probable. > > I don't see how that would work. deep_probe_is_supported() is called on oftree > registration, which is prior to the board driver's register_driver. Arg.. you're right, didn't noticed that call during barebox_register_of(). Regards, Marco _______________________________________________ barebox mailing list barebox@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/barebox
