From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: p.zabel@pengutronix.de (Philipp Zabel) Date: Fri, 26 Jul 2013 12:26:37 +0200 Subject: [PATCH v8] reset: Add driver for gpio-controlled reset pins In-Reply-To: References: <1369904940-716-1-git-send-email-p.zabel@pengutronix.de> <20130716015038.GD28375@S2101-09.ap.freescale.net> <51E4BF98.8030604@wwwdotorg.org> <20130716041056.GA30067@S2101-09.ap.freescale.net> <51E56AA7.7020103@wwwdotorg.org> <20130717030246.GA4541@S2101-09.ap.freescale.net> <51E6CCE4.20705@wwwdotorg.org> <20130717213836.GA13324@amd.pavel.ucw.cz> <51E719A6.6070105@wwwdotorg.org> <20130718112555.GB1021@amd.pavel.ucw.cz> Message-ID: <1374834397.4013.15.camel@pizza.hi.pengutronix.de> To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org List-Id: linux-arm-kernel.lists.infradead.org Am Donnerstag, den 18.07.2013, 11:45 -0700 schrieb Olof Johansson: > Hi, > > On Thu, Jul 18, 2013 at 4:25 AM, Pavel Machek wrote: > > > It sound to me like keeping ammount of -EPROBE_DEFER to minimum is > > still preferred. > > Hand-crafting initcall level ordering of various drivers and subsystem > is probably an even greater evil though. We've done it in the past, > but now that we have deferred probe we have the option of not having > to do it every time, such as this. > > You're spending an awful lot of energy arguing over this, but nobody > has actually shown data of how much deferral is happening -- and that > it's a real problem. Until someone does so there's no reason to change > it from the default module init level at all, I'd say. Alright, I've backed out the arch_initcall change and resent the patch. If you are fine with that, I'll send you a pull request for this and the "reset: allow drivers to request probe deferral" patch. regards Philipp