From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Russell King Subject: Re: Best practice device tree design for display subsystems/DRM Date: Tue, 2 Jul 2013 19:43:05 +0100 Message-ID: <20130702184305.GB13924@flint.arm.linux.org.uk> References: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: devicetree-discuss-bounces+gldd-devicetree-discuss=m.gmane.org-uLR06cmDAlY/bJ5BZ2RsiQ@public.gmane.org Sender: "devicetree-discuss" To: Daniel Drake Cc: =?iso-8859-1?Q?Jean-Fran=E7ois?= Moine , "devicetree-discuss-uLR06cmDAlY/bJ5BZ2RsiQ@public.gmane.org" , dri-devel-PD4FTy7X32lNgt0PjOBp9y5qC8QIuHrW@public.gmane.org, Sebastian Hesselbarth List-Id: devicetree@vger.kernel.org On Tue, Jul 02, 2013 at 11:43:59AM -0600, Daniel Drake wrote: > exynos seems to take a the same approach. Components are separate in > the device tree, and each component is implemented as a platform > driver or i2c driver. However all the drivers are built together in > the same module, and the module_init sequence is careful to initialise > all of the output component drivers before loading the DRM driver. The > output component driver store their findings in global structures. I will point out that relying on driver probing orders has already been stated by driver model people to be unsafe. This is why I will not adopt such a solution for my driver; it is a bad design. -- Russell King