On Mon, Apr 11, 2016 at 04:49:02PM +0200, Thierry Reding wrote: > On Mon, Apr 11, 2016 at 03:32:39PM +0100, Mark Brown wrote:
> > Long term we want a bigger refactoring but > > I think we need to sort out what's going on with probe ordering in > > general before we do that, that's part of the problem here - people > > really aren't happy with deferral and for good reason. > What happened to correctness first? I thought we had at some point all > agreed that even if deferred probe wasn't perfect it would at least give > us correct results. And if all the code in place to properly establish > the dependencies we could rid ourselves of all the downsides at once if > ever we came up with a better alternative. This has never been completely correct since it predates deferred probe in the first place and was originally relying on init ordering. Trying to use deferred probe unconditionally right now would mean rewriting the registration section of almost every regulator driver which seems a bigger and more error prone process better approached after the current issues are resolved. Without doing that it'd just be shuffling the problem around again and I'm not convinced it's a good idea to rush such a large change. If we just defer in the cases where we have identified a need to defer that takes a lot of the pressure off and reduces the risks, a big part of why this is coming up is that we made a change that affects all drivers so it seems better not to continue making such broad changes in a hurry.
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
