Scott Wood wrote: > I think that was internally, and not on this specific comment wording. > I don't think that code comment adequately explains things.
I don't really have any more insight to add. >> otherwise, the mdio-mux code would not prepare the mdio mus in time, and >> there would be initialization failures. Now maybe this goes away with >> -EPROBE_DEFER, or maybe it doesn't. But until we push the DPAA drivers >> upstream, we won't know. > > Do you know if it's theoretically supposed to be fixed and just can't > test it, or are you unsure of whether it's even supposed to work? I'm not sure of anything. For one thing, we don't implement EPROBE_DEFER in the DPAA drivers, so we'd probably have to fix that before anything. And then, I'm just guessing that's the solution. > I don't think we should be relying on the order of this list to > determine probe order. For one thing, it won't work if the drivers > register after you create the platform devices (e.g. they're modules). I agree we should not be relying on the order, but I don't know what to do. EPROBE_DEFER was designed to handle this situation, so my recommendation is to worry about it later. I can beef up the comment to talk about that, if you want. -- Timur Tabi Linux kernel developer at Freescale _______________________________________________ Linuxppc-dev mailing list Linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org https://lists.ozlabs.org/listinfo/linuxppc-dev
