Re: [Ksummit-2013-discuss] Defining schemas for Device Tree
Date: Mon Jul 29 2013 - 20:49:57 EST
On Mon, Jul 29, 2013 at 8:41 PM, David Lang <david@xxxxxxx> wrote:
> On Mon, 29 Jul 2013, Jason Cooper wrote:
>>> I don't think that siblings have any defined order in DT. If reading a
>>> device tree, there's no guarantee you get nodes or properties out in the
>>> same order as the original .dts file.
>> That's why I raised the point. If people think encoding initialization
>> order in the DT is a good idea, then we should change the dtc so it
>> compiles/decompiles in the same order.
> if you make the initializaiton order 'magicly' correct by following the
> order of the flat representation, how do you reflect the case where
> initialization can be overlapped for different devices?
I agree with David, using DT to try and eliminate deferred probes
isn't a good solution. Overlapped probes and doing probes on multiple
CPUs introduces a temporal angle to the problem. Best to just let the
deferred probing code dynamically solve the problem. From what I can
see the deferred probing solution is working out nicely.
Plus there isn't that much code being run in deferred probing. I
suspect potential savings (if there even is any) are under a
> you are just trading one side of the problem for the other.
> David Lang
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/