From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1753240AbbJSRK7 (ORCPT ); Mon, 19 Oct 2015 13:10:59 -0400 Received: from h1446028.stratoserver.net ([85.214.92.142]:58306 "EHLO mail.ahsoftware.de" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1750985AbbJSRK5 (ORCPT ); Mon, 19 Oct 2015 13:10:57 -0400 Subject: Re: [PATCH 03/14] init: deps: dt: use (HW-specific) dependencies provided by the DT too To: Mark Brown References: <1445102067-11519-1-git-send-email-holler@ahsoftware.de> <1445102067-11519-4-git-send-email-holler@ahsoftware.de> <20151019123758.GF14956@sirena.org.uk> Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Andrew Morton , Greg Kroah-Hartman , Russell King , Grant Likely , Frank Rowand , Rob Herring , David Gibson From: Alexander Holler Message-ID: <56252415.2090605@ahsoftware.de> Date: Mon, 19 Oct 2015 19:10:45 +0200 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:38.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/38.1.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <20151019123758.GF14956@sirena.org.uk> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Am 19.10.2015 um 14:37 schrieb Mark Brown: > On Sat, Oct 17, 2015 at 07:14:16PM +0200, Alexander Holler wrote: >> This patch adds dependencies provided by the hardware description in >> the used DT. This avoids the use of the deferred probe mechanism >> on most (if not all) DT based kernels. >> >> Drawback is that the binary DT blob has to be enhanced with type >> information for phandles (which are used as dependencies) which >> needs a modified dtc. > > You probably want to loop the DT and DTC maintainers in on this - adding > Frank, Rob and David and leaving context for their reference. It would > probably help if you could explicitly say why the DTB needs to be > annotated and why this annotiation is best done via a DTC modification I've had them on the cc-list on the previous two evolutions of these patches, when the whole stuff was for DT only. The annotation is not for DTB but for initcalls. But maybe you mean with annotation the missing type information in DTBs, which is why I had to add a new property. > (rather than doing something like add new properties, or just guessing > that any phandle reference is a dependency). Besides the remote-endpoints, which have been introduced after my first patch to use phandles as dependencies (1.5 years ago or so), every phandle also was a dependency. But anyway, the stuff was ignored before and the current evolution of the patches will never see mainline (too). So, just see the whole approach as failed. I don't have a problem with that. At least I do that and almost did that before, I've just posted the newest version of the approach because I see it as the final evolution and don't will work further on that stuff anymore. Regards, Alexander Holler