From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: holler@ahsoftware.de (Alexander Holler) Date: Wed, 27 Aug 2014 18:30:54 +0200 Subject: [RFC PATCH 0/9] dt: dependencies (for deterministic driver initialization order based on the DT) In-Reply-To: <53FE05AE.9000406@wwwdotorg.org> References: <53F64624.5000403@ahsoftware.de> <20140822131919.GX21734@leverpostej> <20140825093931.GB2399@ulmo> <20140825133714.GH4163@ulmo.nvidia.com> <20140826084208.AE5F0C40989@trevor.secretlab.ca> <20140826084922.GG17263@ulmo> <53FC566C.30904@ahsoftware.de> <20140826101107.GC32315@leverpostej> <20140827103432.64927C409CB@trevor.secretlab.ca> <20140827144403.GB13850@arm.com> <53FE05AE.9000406@wwwdotorg.org> Message-ID: <53FE07BE.7000809@ahsoftware.de> To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org List-Id: linux-arm-kernel.lists.infradead.org Am 27.08.2014 18:22, schrieb Stephen Warren: > On 08/27/2014 08:44 AM, Catalin Marinas wrote: >> It's not just optimisation but an important feature for new arm64 SoCs. >> Given some Tegra discussions recently, in many cases the machine_desc >> use on arm is primarily to initialise devices in the right order. If we >> can solve this in a more deterministic way (other than deferred >> probing), we avoid the need for a dedicated SoC platform driver (or >> machine_desc) or workarounds like different initcall levels and explicit >> DT parsing. > > A lot of the ordering is SW driver dependencies. I'm not sure how much > of that can accurately be claimed as HW dependencies. As such, I'm not > sure that putting dependencies into DT would be a good idea; it doesn't > feel like HW data, and might well change if we restructure SW. It'd need > some detailed research though. Almost every phandle is a dependency, so the DT is already full with them.