Re: [RESEND PATCH v1 0/5] Solve postboot supplier cleanup and optimize probe ordering

[Frank Rowand]

On 6/25/19 9:30 PM, Sandeep Patil wrote:
> On Tue, Jun 25, 2019 at 11:53:13AM +0800, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote:
>> On Mon, Jun 24, 2019 at 03:37:07PM -0700, Sandeep Patil wrote:
>>> We are trying to make sure that all (most) drivers in an Aarch64 system can
>>> be kernel modules for Android, like any other desktop system for
>>> example. There are a number of problems we need to fix before that happens
>>> ofcourse.
>>
>> I will argue that this is NOT an android-specific issue.  If the goal of
>> creating an arm64 kernel that will "just work" for a wide range of
>> hardware configurations without rebuilding is going to happen, we need
>> to solve this problem with DT.  This goal was one of the original wishes
>> of the arm64 development effort, let's not loose sight of it as
>> obviously, this is not working properly just yet.
> 
> I believe the proposed solution in this patch series is just that. I am not
> sure what the alternatives are. The alternative suggested was to reuse

Look at the responses from myself and from Rob to patch 0.  No one responded
to our comments.

-Frank


> pre-existing dt-bindings for dependency based probe re-ordering and resolution.
> 
> However, it seems we had no way to *really* check if these dependencies are
> the real. So, a device may or may not actually depend on the other device for
> probe / initialization when the dependency is mentioned in it's dt node. From
> DT's point of view, there is no way to tell this ..
> 
> I don't know how this is handled in x86. With DT, I don't see how we can do
> this unless DT dependencies are _really_ tied with runtime dependencies (The
> cycles would have been apparent if that was the case.
> 
> Honestly, the "depends-on" property suggested here just piles on to the
> existing state. So, it is somewhat doubling the exiting bindings. It says,
> you must use depends-on property to define probe / initialization dependency.
> The existing bindings like 'clock', 'interrupt', '*-supply' do not enforce
> that right now, so you will have device nodes that have these bindings right
> now but don't necessarily need them for successful probe for example.
> 
>>
>> It just seems that Android is the first one to actually try and
>> implement that goal :)
> 
> I guess :)
> 
> - ssp
> 
>>
>> thanks,
>>
>> greg k-h
>