What's still questionable about the patches for dtc is if dependencies to

devices and not just

drivers should be included in the new property dependencies too.

I don't think the DTC should have any semantic knowledge of why these
dependency
arcs are being added to the graph.  Sure, it could be that different types
of arcs are added,
and that the total dependency graph travels multiple such arc types to
obtains some valid
topological sort, but the DTC itself should just not care.

After saying that, there are likely semantic checks that could be added to
ensure some
policy about those arcs was followed.  Separate the implementation from the
policy.
There is already plenty of discussion down that line within the DTC ongoing.

HTH,
jdl



On Mon, May 19, 2014 at 7:35 AM, Alexander Holler [off-list ref]wrote:

Am 17.05.2014 14:16, schrieb Tomasz Figa:


 References to phandles of parent or child nodes will not be added to this

quoted

quoted

property, because this information is already contained in the blob (in
the
form of the tree itself).

I wonder if we shouldn't be including them too for consistency related
reasons, so we have all the necessary information in one place.
References to child nodes are great recipes for cycles, though...

No strong opinion, though, just an idea.

As said, they are already in the tree itself. And they are already
included in the graph (these are the black edges), so they just don't
appear in the property dependencies.

quoted

quoted

No dependencies to disabled nodes will be added.

Same here. IMHO it might be wise to let the parsing entity (e.g. kernel)
decide whether to ignore a dependency to disabled node or not.

Otherwise, I like the simplicity of compile-time dependency list
creation. Quite a nice work.

Thanks.

What's still questionable about the patches for dtc is if dependencies to
devices and not just drivers should be included in the new property
dependencies too. My current assumption is that all devices belonging to
one and the same driver don't have dependencies between each other. In
other words the order in which devices will be attached to one and the same
driver isn't important. If that assumption is correct it would be possible
to just attach all devices belonging to a driver after the driver was
loaded (also I haven't that done in my patches).

And thinking about that again, I think I was wrong and doing so have been
some kind of evil premature optimization I did in order to spare a few
dependencies/edges. But changing this can done by removing a few lines in
the code for dtc (patch 1).

Regards,

Alexander Holler



_______________________________________________
linux-arm-kernel mailing list
linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-arm-kernel