Re: [GIT PULL] On-demand device probing

[Geert Uytterhoeven]

On Thu, Oct 22, 2015 at 8:53 PM, Frank Rowand <frowand.list@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> I have been defaulting to the position that has been asserted by
> the device tree maintainters, that probe deferrals work just fine
> for at least the majority of cases (and is the message I have been
> sharing in my conference presentations about device tree).  But I
> suspect that there is at least a small minority of cases that are not
> well served by probe deferral.  (Not to be read as an endorsement of
> this specific patch series, just a generic observation.)

Yep, once in a while people still stumble on obscure subsystems and drivers
not supporting probe deferral. Usually they don't fail with a big bang, so
everything seems fine.

E.g. last week's "of_mdiobus_register_phy() and deferred probe"
(https://lkml.org/lkml/2015/10/22/377).

Gr{oetje,eeting}s,

                        Geert

--
Geert Uytterhoeven -- There's lots of Linux beyond ia32 -- geert@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx

In personal conversations with technical people, I call myself a hacker. But
when I'm talking to journalists I just say "programmer" or something like that.
                                -- Linus Torvalds
--
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/