Hi Daniel,
On Wed, Aug 29, 2018 at 6:26 PM Daniel Lezcano
<daniel.lezc...@linaro.org> wrote:
> On 29/08/2018 17:44, Chris Brandt wrote:
> > On Wednesday, August 29, 2018 1, Daniel Lezcano wrote:
> >> Can the boot constraints [1] solve this issue instead of the changes you
> >> are proposing ?
> >>
> >> [1] https://lwn.net/Articles/747250/
> >
> > Thanks for the suggestion, but...
> >
> > I grepped for "boot_constraint" and it shows up nowhere in the current
> > kernel.
> >
> > Also, this article was written Feb 16, 2018, and I can see that the
> > patch series was still being submitted (V7) as of Feb 23, 2018.
>
> Ah ok, fair enough, I thought it was merged. In any case, after thinking
> about it, it wouldn't have helped.
>
> My concern is if we can avoid changing the TIMER_OF_DECLARE because of
> the boot order, it would be better.
>
> Can returning EPROBE_DEFER fix this issue? Or use the 'complex
> dependencies' [1]?
*_OF_DECLARE() is not compatible with EPROBE_DEFER, which causes
issues with complex dependencies.
That's exactly why many subsystems are moving away from it.
E.g. IOMMU_OF_DECLARE was removed in v4.19-rc1.
Gr{oetje,eeting}s,
Geert
--
Geert Uytterhoeven -- There's lots of Linux beyond ia32 -- ge...@linux-m68k.org
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
