On Mon, Jul 29, 2013 at 8:41 PM, David Lang [off-list ref] wrote:

On Mon, 29 Jul 2013, Jason Cooper wrote:

quoted

quoted

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
millisecond.

you are just trading one side of the problem for the other.

David Lang

-- 
Jon Smirl
jonsmirl at gmail.com