From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mail-gw0-f42.google.com (mail-gw0-f42.google.com [74.125.83.42]) by ozlabs.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id EA24CB7D15 for ; Sun, 11 Apr 2010 09:47:28 +1000 (EST) Received: by gwb11 with SMTP id 11so1915653gwb.15 for ; Sat, 10 Apr 2010 16:47:27 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 Sender: glikely@secretlab.ca In-Reply-To: <20100410233909.GA16099@linux-sh.org> References: <4BBF7E9C.80604@billgatliff.com> <1270889597.6865.107.camel@pasglop> <4BC07EAD.9020307@billgatliff.com> <20100410233909.GA16099@linux-sh.org> From: Grant Likely Date: Sat, 10 Apr 2010 17:47:07 -0600 Message-ID: Subject: Re: A better way to sequence driver initialization? To: Paul Mundt Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Cc: Bill Gatliff , linux-embedded , Linux/PPC Development List-Id: Linux on PowerPC Developers Mail List List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , 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. Well stated. g.