From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Alexander Holler Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH 0/9] dt: dependencies (for deterministic driver initialization order based on the DT) Date: Wed, 14 May 2014 19:53:58 +0200 Message-ID: <5373ADB6.1070702@ahsoftware.de> References: <1399913280-6915-1-git-send-email-holler@ahsoftware.de> <20140514141914.446F7C4153D@trevor.secretlab.ca> <53738580.7000902@ahsoftware.de> <53739871.9070407@ahsoftware.de> <5373ABD2.9010508@ahsoftware.de> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: In-Reply-To: <5373ABD2.9010508@ahsoftware.de> Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org To: Rob Herring Cc: Grant Likely , Linux Kernel Mailing List , "devicetree@vger.kernel.org" , Jon Loeliger , Russell King , Greg Kroah-Hartman , Rob Herring , "linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org" List-Id: devicetree@vger.kernel.org Am 14.05.2014 19:45, schrieb Alexander Holler: > One of the biggest problem of the deferred probe stuff is the problem > how to identify real problems if everything ends up with a deferred > probe when an error occurs? That means if you display an error whenever > something is deferred, the log becomes almost unreadable. If you don't > display an error, you never will see an error. And how do you display > the real error when deferred probes finally do fail? The deferred probe > stuff doesn't has any information about the underlying error, so it > can't display it. And that is a real problem. I've recently tried to identify why a driver failed and it was a nightmare because nothing offered any message (debug or not) when a probe was deferred. So I had to insert tons of printks to walk upwards to find the finally place where the probe failed. Everything afterwards just has forwarded the -EPROBE_DEFER without printing any message. Regards, Alexander Holler