From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mail.linuxfoundation.org ([140.211.169.12]:57814 "EHLO mail.linuxfoundation.org" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751911Ab3HQAku (ORCPT ); Fri, 16 Aug 2013 20:40:50 -0400 Date: Fri, 16 Aug 2013 15:35:23 -0700 From: Greg Kroah-Hartman Subject: Re: [RFC 2/4] driver core: Allow early registration of devices Message-ID: <20130816223523.GA31247@kroah.com> References: <1376685563-1053-1-git-send-email-treding@nvidia.com> <1376685563-1053-3-git-send-email-treding@nvidia.com> <20130816210637.GC2198@kroah.com> <20130816215530.GA14464@mithrandir> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: Sender: devicetree-owner@vger.kernel.org To: Grant Likely Cc: Thierry Reding , Rob Herring , Stephen Warren , Hiroshi Doyu , Lorenzo Pieralisi , Sebastian Hesselbarth , "devicetree@vger.kernel.org" , Linux Kernel Mailing List List-ID: On Fri, Aug 16, 2013 at 11:20:55PM +0100, Grant Likely wrote: > Also, for the devices that are created early, is it really appropriate > to use APIs that require a struct device? I could easily argue that > anything done at early boot should only be the bare minimum to allow > the kernel to get to initcalls, and so mucking about with devices is > inappropriate because it really messes with the assumptions made in > the design of the driver model. I agree, this could get really messy, really fast, and be a place that people abuse quite easily. greg k-h