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 20:08:09 +0100 Message-ID: <20130702190809.GC13924@flint.arm.linux.org.uk> References: <20130702184305.GB13924@flint.arm.linux.org.uk> 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 12:54:41PM -0600, Daniel Drake wrote: > On Tue, Jul 2, 2013 at 12:43 PM, Russell King wrote: > > 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. > > Just to clarify, what you're objecting to is effectively the > following? Because it is not guaranteed in the future that the probe > order will be the same as the platform_driver_register() calls? Correct. Consider what happens if the devices are registered after the driver(s) have been registered, which may not be in the correct order. -- Russell King