From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Bill Gatliff Subject: Re: A better way to sequence driver initialization? Date: Sat, 10 Apr 2010 20:33:53 -0500 Message-ID: <4BC12701.7000208@billgatliff.com> References: <4BBF7E9C.80604@billgatliff.com> <1270889597.6865.107.camel@pasglop> <4BC07EAD.9020307@billgatliff.com> <20100410233909.GA16099@linux-sh.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: In-Reply-To: Sender: linux-embedded-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" To: Grant Likely Cc: Paul Mundt , Benjamin Herrenschmidt , Linux/PPC Development , linux-embedded Grant Likely wrote: > On Sat, Apr 10, 2010 at 5:39 PM, Paul Mundt wrote: > >> In cases where you can specifically note that dependencies, doing so will >> save you a world of pain. Despite that, it's simply not possible to do >> this as a free-for-all. Devices or busses that can tolerate multi-threaded >> probing need to be converted over one at a time, but even then you still >> need the dependency tracking for those that depend on link order today. >> Who's to say a function like gpio_request_wait_for_it(GPIO_NUMBER, "dependent-driver") isn't the way to do the dependency tracking? I can't even implement that without a context that can sleep... b.g. -- Bill Gatliff bgat@billgatliff.com