Re: [RFD] Functional dependencies between devices

On 30 October 2015 at 23:52, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote: > On Tue, Oct 27, 2015 at 04:24:14PM +0100, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote: >> My idea is to represent a supplier-consumer dependency between devices (or >> more precisely between device+driver combos) as a "link" object containing >> pointers to

Re: [RFD] Functional dependencies between devices

On 30 October 2015 at 23:52, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote: > On Tue, Oct 27, 2015 at 04:24:14PM +0100, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote: >> My idea is to represent a supplier-consumer dependency between devices (or >> more precisely between device+driver combos) as a "link" object

Re: [RFD] Functional dependencies between devices

Hi, Sorry for late response. On 11/24/2015 05:28 PM, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote: > On Tuesday, November 24, 2015 03:57:09 PM Andrzej Hajda wrote: >> On 11/19/2015 11:04 PM, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote: >>> On Thursday, November 19, 2015 10:08:43 AM Andrzej Hajda wrote: On 11/18/2015 03:17 AM,

Re: [RFD] Functional dependencies between devices

Hi, Sorry for late response. On 11/24/2015 05:28 PM, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote: > On Tuesday, November 24, 2015 03:57:09 PM Andrzej Hajda wrote: >> On 11/19/2015 11:04 PM, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote: >>> On Thursday, November 19, 2015 10:08:43 AM Andrzej Hajda wrote: On 11/18/2015 03:17 AM,

Re: [RFD] Functional dependencies between devices

On Tuesday, November 24, 2015 03:57:09 PM Andrzej Hajda wrote: > On 11/19/2015 11:04 PM, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote: > > On Thursday, November 19, 2015 10:08:43 AM Andrzej Hajda wrote: > >> On 11/18/2015 03:17 AM, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote: > >>> On Tuesday, November 17, 2015 01:44:59 PM Andrzej Hajda

Re: [RFD] Functional dependencies between devices

On 11/19/2015 11:04 PM, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote: > On Thursday, November 19, 2015 10:08:43 AM Andrzej Hajda wrote: >> On 11/18/2015 03:17 AM, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote: >>> On Tuesday, November 17, 2015 01:44:59 PM Andrzej Hajda wrote: Hi Rafael, > [cut] > >>> So the operations that need

Re: [RFD] Functional dependencies between devices

On 11/21/2015 03:04 PM, Mark Brown wrote: > On Thu, Nov 19, 2015 at 07:50:45AM +0100, Andrzej Hajda wrote: >> On 11/17/2015 02:55 PM, Mark Brown wrote: >>> This is going to be really common but I'm not sure I see a problem with >>> it in terms of what Raphael is proposing - could you go into more

Re: [RFD] Functional dependencies between devices

On 11/19/2015 11:04 PM, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote: > On Thursday, November 19, 2015 10:08:43 AM Andrzej Hajda wrote: >> On 11/18/2015 03:17 AM, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote: >>> On Tuesday, November 17, 2015 01:44:59 PM Andrzej Hajda wrote: Hi Rafael, > [cut] > >>> So the operations that need

Re: [RFD] Functional dependencies between devices

On 11/21/2015 03:04 PM, Mark Brown wrote: > On Thu, Nov 19, 2015 at 07:50:45AM +0100, Andrzej Hajda wrote: >> On 11/17/2015 02:55 PM, Mark Brown wrote: >>> This is going to be really common but I'm not sure I see a problem with >>> it in terms of what Raphael is proposing - could you go into more

Re: [RFD] Functional dependencies between devices

On Tuesday, November 24, 2015 03:57:09 PM Andrzej Hajda wrote: > On 11/19/2015 11:04 PM, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote: > > On Thursday, November 19, 2015 10:08:43 AM Andrzej Hajda wrote: > >> On 11/18/2015 03:17 AM, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote: > >>> On Tuesday, November 17, 2015 01:44:59 PM Andrzej Hajda

Re: [RFD] Functional dependencies between devices

On Thu, Nov 19, 2015 at 07:50:45AM +0100, Andrzej Hajda wrote: > On 11/17/2015 02:55 PM, Mark Brown wrote: > > This is going to be really common but I'm not sure I see a problem with > > it in terms of what Raphael is proposing - could you go into more detail > > on the problem you see here? >

Re: [RFD] Functional dependencies between devices

On Thu, Nov 19, 2015 at 02:18:59PM +0100, Thierry Reding wrote: > On Tue, Nov 17, 2015 at 01:55:49PM +, Mark Brown wrote: > > On Tue, Nov 17, 2015 at 01:49:17PM +0100, Andrzej Hajda wrote: > > > On 10/27/2015 04:24 PM, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote: > > > this scenario: > > > - many clock

Re: [RFD] Functional dependencies between devices

On Thu, Nov 19, 2015 at 07:50:45AM +0100, Andrzej Hajda wrote: > On 11/17/2015 02:55 PM, Mark Brown wrote: > > This is going to be really common but I'm not sure I see a problem with > > it in terms of what Raphael is proposing - could you go into more detail > > on the problem you see here? >

Re: [RFD] Functional dependencies between devices

On Thu, Nov 19, 2015 at 02:18:59PM +0100, Thierry Reding wrote: > On Tue, Nov 17, 2015 at 01:55:49PM +, Mark Brown wrote: > > On Tue, Nov 17, 2015 at 01:49:17PM +0100, Andrzej Hajda wrote: > > > On 10/27/2015 04:24 PM, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote: > > > this scenario: > > > - many clock

Re: [RFD] Functional dependencies between devices

On Thursday, November 19, 2015 11:04:00 PM Rafael J. Wysocki wrote: > On Thursday, November 19, 2015 10:08:43 AM Andrzej Hajda wrote: > > On 11/18/2015 03:17 AM, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote: > > > On Tuesday, November 17, 2015 01:44:59 PM Andrzej Hajda wrote: > > >> Hi Rafael, > > >> > > [cut] > > >

Re: [RFD] Functional dependencies between devices

On Thursday, November 19, 2015 10:08:43 AM Andrzej Hajda wrote: > On 11/18/2015 03:17 AM, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote: > > On Tuesday, November 17, 2015 01:44:59 PM Andrzej Hajda wrote: > >> Hi Rafael, > >> [cut] > > So the operations that need to be taken care of are: > > - Probe (suppliers need to

Re: [RFD] Functional dependencies between devices

On Tue, Nov 17, 2015 at 01:55:49PM +, Mark Brown wrote: > On Tue, Nov 17, 2015 at 01:49:17PM +0100, Andrzej Hajda wrote: > > On 10/27/2015 04:24 PM, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote: > > > this scenario: > > - many clock providers, irq domains are not provided by devices, > > That seems like

Re: [RFD] Functional dependencies between devices

On 11/18/2015 03:17 AM, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote: > On Tuesday, November 17, 2015 01:44:59 PM Andrzej Hajda wrote: >> Hi Rafael, >> >> Please forgive me late reply, but I have missed this thread before. >> >> On 10/27/2015 04:24 PM, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote: >>> Hi All, >>> >>> As discussed in the

Re: [RFD] Functional dependencies between devices

On 11/18/2015 03:17 AM, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote: > On Tuesday, November 17, 2015 01:44:59 PM Andrzej Hajda wrote: >> Hi Rafael, >> >> Please forgive me late reply, but I have missed this thread before. >> >> On 10/27/2015 04:24 PM, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote: >>> Hi All, >>> >>> As discussed in the

Re: [RFD] Functional dependencies between devices

On Thursday, November 19, 2015 11:04:00 PM Rafael J. Wysocki wrote: > On Thursday, November 19, 2015 10:08:43 AM Andrzej Hajda wrote: > > On 11/18/2015 03:17 AM, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote: > > > On Tuesday, November 17, 2015 01:44:59 PM Andrzej Hajda wrote: > > >> Hi Rafael, > > >> > > [cut] > > >

Re: [RFD] Functional dependencies between devices

On Thursday, November 19, 2015 10:08:43 AM Andrzej Hajda wrote: > On 11/18/2015 03:17 AM, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote: > > On Tuesday, November 17, 2015 01:44:59 PM Andrzej Hajda wrote: > >> Hi Rafael, > >> [cut] > > So the operations that need to be taken care of are: > > - Probe (suppliers need to

Re: [RFD] Functional dependencies between devices

On Tue, Nov 17, 2015 at 01:55:49PM +, Mark Brown wrote: > On Tue, Nov 17, 2015 at 01:49:17PM +0100, Andrzej Hajda wrote: > > On 10/27/2015 04:24 PM, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote: > > > this scenario: > > - many clock providers, irq domains are not provided by devices, > > That seems like

Re: [RFD] Functional dependencies between devices

On 11/17/2015 02:55 PM, Mark Brown wrote: > On Tue, Nov 17, 2015 at 01:49:17PM +0100, Andrzej Hajda wrote: > > Please fix your mail client to word wrap within paragraphs at something > substantially less than 80 columns. Doing this makes your messages much > easier to read and reply to. > >> On

Re: [RFD] Functional dependencies between devices

On 11/17/2015 02:55 PM, Mark Brown wrote: > On Tue, Nov 17, 2015 at 01:49:17PM +0100, Andrzej Hajda wrote: > > Please fix your mail client to word wrap within paragraphs at something > substantially less than 80 columns. Doing this makes your messages much > easier to read and reply to. > >> On

Re: [RFD] Functional dependencies between devices

On Tuesday, November 17, 2015 01:44:59 PM Andrzej Hajda wrote: > Hi Rafael, > > Please forgive me late reply, but I have missed this thread before. > > On 10/27/2015 04:24 PM, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote: > > Hi All, > > > > As discussed in the recent "On-demand device probing" thread and in a

Re: [RFD] Functional dependencies between devices

On Tue, Nov 17, 2015 at 03:31:29PM -0500, Alan Stern wrote: > Also, there's a real problem that needs to be solved concerning how > resources are identified in the absence of DT (or ACPI or something > similar). So long as we can add new dependencies at probe time we should always be able to

Re: [RFD] Functional dependencies between devices

On Tue, 17 Nov 2015, Andrzej Hajda wrote: > > and I'd like the driver core to track them and act on them in certain cases > > where they matter. The argument for doing that in the driver core is that > > there are quite a few distinct use cases related to that, they are > > relatively > > hard

Re: [RFD] Functional dependencies between devices

On Tue, Nov 17, 2015 at 01:49:17PM +0100, Andrzej Hajda wrote: Please fix your mail client to word wrap within paragraphs at something substantially less than 80 columns. Doing this makes your messages much easier to read and reply to. > On 10/27/2015 04:24 PM, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote: > this

Re: [RFD] Functional dependencies between devices

Hi Rafael, It is just re-send of the previous message with fixed e-mail. Please forgive me late reply, but I have missed this thread before. On 10/27/2015 04:24 PM, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote: > Hi All, > > As discussed in the recent "On-demand device probing" thread and in a Kernel > Summit

Re: [RFD] Functional dependencies between devices

Hi Rafael, Please forgive me late reply, but I have missed this thread before. On 10/27/2015 04:24 PM, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote: > Hi All, > > As discussed in the recent "On-demand device probing" thread and in a Kernel > Summit session earlier today, there is a problem with handling cases where

Re: [RFD] Functional dependencies between devices

Hi Rafael, Please forgive me late reply, but I have missed this thread before. On 10/27/2015 04:24 PM, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote: > Hi All, > > As discussed in the recent "On-demand device probing" thread and in a Kernel > Summit session earlier today, there is a problem with handling cases where

Re: [RFD] Functional dependencies between devices

Hi Rafael, It is just re-send of the previous message with fixed e-mail. Please forgive me late reply, but I have missed this thread before. On 10/27/2015 04:24 PM, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote: > Hi All, > > As discussed in the recent "On-demand device probing" thread and in a Kernel > Summit

Re: [RFD] Functional dependencies between devices

On Tue, Nov 17, 2015 at 01:49:17PM +0100, Andrzej Hajda wrote: Please fix your mail client to word wrap within paragraphs at something substantially less than 80 columns. Doing this makes your messages much easier to read and reply to. > On 10/27/2015 04:24 PM, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote: > this

Re: [RFD] Functional dependencies between devices

On Tue, Nov 17, 2015 at 03:31:29PM -0500, Alan Stern wrote: > Also, there's a real problem that needs to be solved concerning how > resources are identified in the absence of DT (or ACPI or something > similar). So long as we can add new dependencies at probe time we should always be able to

Re: [RFD] Functional dependencies between devices

On Tuesday, November 17, 2015 01:44:59 PM Andrzej Hajda wrote: > Hi Rafael, > > Please forgive me late reply, but I have missed this thread before. > > On 10/27/2015 04:24 PM, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote: > > Hi All, > > > > As discussed in the recent "On-demand device probing" thread and in a

Re: [RFD] Functional dependencies between devices

On Tue, 17 Nov 2015, Andrzej Hajda wrote: > > and I'd like the driver core to track them and act on them in certain cases > > where they matter. The argument for doing that in the driver core is that > > there are quite a few distinct use cases related to that, they are > > relatively > > hard

Re: [RFD] Functional dependencies between devices

On Monday, November 09, 2015 01:32:04 PM Thierry Reding wrote: > On Tue, Oct 27, 2015 at 04:24:14PM +0100, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote: > [...] > > There's a question about what if the supplier device is being unbound before > > the consumer one (for example, as a result of a hotplug event). My

Re: [RFD] Functional dependencies between devices

On Tue, Oct 27, 2015 at 04:24:14PM +0100, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote: [...] > There's a question about what if the supplier device is being unbound before > the consumer one (for example, as a result of a hotplug event). My current > view on that is that the consumer needs to be force-unbound in

Re: [RFD] Functional dependencies between devices

On Tue, Oct 27, 2015 at 04:24:14PM +0100, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote: [...] > There's a question about what if the supplier device is being unbound before > the consumer one (for example, as a result of a hotplug event). My current > view on that is that the consumer needs to be force-unbound in

Re: [RFD] Functional dependencies between devices

On Monday, November 09, 2015 01:32:04 PM Thierry Reding wrote: > On Tue, Oct 27, 2015 at 04:24:14PM +0100, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote: > [...] > > There's a question about what if the supplier device is being unbound before > > the consumer one (for example, as a result of a hotplug event). My

Re: [RFD] Functional dependencies between devices

On Sat, 31 Oct 2015, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote: > > One possible approach is to have a "wait_for_driver" flag, along with a > > timeout value (or perhaps using a fixed timeout value). When a > > dependency gets registered with this flag set, the function call > > wouldn't return until the target

Re: [RFD] Functional dependencies between devices

On Sat, 31 Oct 2015, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote: > > One possible approach is to have a "wait_for_driver" flag, along with a > > timeout value (or perhaps using a fixed timeout value). When a > > dependency gets registered with this flag set, the function call > > wouldn't return until the target

Re: [RFD] Functional dependencies between devices

On Sat, Oct 31, 2015 at 03:13:09AM +0100, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote: > On Thursday, October 29, 2015 09:15:09 AM Mark Brown wrote: > > This seems like a good plan to me however I am concerned that only > > allowing links to be created at device registration time will prove > > restrictive - it

Re: [RFD] Functional dependencies between devices

On Thursday, October 29, 2015 10:31:08 AM Alan Stern wrote: > Good grief, don't you guys ever trim unwanted material from your > emails? I had to erase more than 4 screens worth of useless stuff > before getting to the relevant portions. > > On Thu, 29 Oct 2015, Tomeu Vizoso wrote: > > > >>

Re: [RFD] Functional dependencies between devices

On Thursday, October 29, 2015 09:15:09 AM Mark Brown wrote: > On Tue, Oct 27, 2015 at 04:24:14PM +0100, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote: > > > So, the question to everybody is whether or not this sounds reasonable or > > there > > are concerns about it and if so what they are. At this point I mostly

Re: [RFD] Functional dependencies between devices

On Tue, Oct 27, 2015 at 04:24:14PM +0100, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote: > My idea is to represent a supplier-consumer dependency between devices (or > more precisely between device+driver combos) as a "link" object containing > pointers to the devices in question, a list node for each of them and some

Re: [RFD] Functional dependencies between devices

On Tue, Oct 27, 2015 at 4:24 PM, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote: > My idea is to represent a supplier-consumer dependency between devices (or > more precisely between device+driver combos) as a "link" object containing > pointers to the devices in question, a list node for each of them and some >

Re: [RFD] Functional dependencies between devices

On Tue, Oct 27, 2015 at 04:24:14PM +0100, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote: > My idea is to represent a supplier-consumer dependency between devices (or > more precisely between device+driver combos) as a "link" object containing > pointers to the devices in question, a list node for each of them and some

Re: [RFD] Functional dependencies between devices

On Tue, Oct 27, 2015 at 4:24 PM, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote: > My idea is to represent a supplier-consumer dependency between devices (or > more precisely between device+driver combos) as a "link" object containing > pointers to the devices in question, a list node for each of

Re: [RFD] Functional dependencies between devices

On Thursday, October 29, 2015 09:15:09 AM Mark Brown wrote: > On Tue, Oct 27, 2015 at 04:24:14PM +0100, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote: > > > So, the question to everybody is whether or not this sounds reasonable or > > there > > are concerns about it and if so what they are. At this point I mostly

Re: [RFD] Functional dependencies between devices

On Thursday, October 29, 2015 10:31:08 AM Alan Stern wrote: > Good grief, don't you guys ever trim unwanted material from your > emails? I had to erase more than 4 screens worth of useless stuff > before getting to the relevant portions. > > On Thu, 29 Oct 2015, Tomeu Vizoso wrote: > > > >>

Re: [RFD] Functional dependencies between devices

On Sat, Oct 31, 2015 at 03:13:09AM +0100, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote: > On Thursday, October 29, 2015 09:15:09 AM Mark Brown wrote: > > This seems like a good plan to me however I am concerned that only > > allowing links to be created at device registration time will prove > > restrictive - it

Re: [RFD] Functional dependencies between devices

Good grief, don't you guys ever trim unwanted material from your emails? I had to erase more than 4 screens worth of useless stuff before getting to the relevant portions. On Thu, 29 Oct 2015, Tomeu Vizoso wrote: > >> Also, have you considered that not only drivers request resources? For > >>

Re: [RFD] Functional dependencies between devices

On 28 October 2015 at 16:54, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote: > On Wednesday, October 28, 2015 03:26:14 PM Tomeu Vizoso wrote: >> On 28 October 2015 at 03:15, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote: >> > On Tuesday, October 27, 2015 04:20:51 PM Tomeu Vizoso wrote: >> >> On 27 October 2015 at 16:24, Rafael J. Wysocki

Re: [RFD] Functional dependencies between devices

On 28 October 2015 at 16:54, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote: > On Wednesday, October 28, 2015 03:26:14 PM Tomeu Vizoso wrote: >> On 28 October 2015 at 03:15, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote: >> > On Tuesday, October 27, 2015 04:20:51 PM Tomeu Vizoso wrote: >> >> On 27

Re: [RFD] Functional dependencies between devices

Good grief, don't you guys ever trim unwanted material from your emails? I had to erase more than 4 screens worth of useless stuff before getting to the relevant portions. On Thu, 29 Oct 2015, Tomeu Vizoso wrote: > >> Also, have you considered that not only drivers request resources? For > >>

Re: [RFD] Functional dependencies between devices

On Wed, Oct 28, 2015 at 04:54:04PM +0100, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote: > Information that is already available at the device registration time should > be used at that time or it makes things harder to follow. > But that really is a tradeoff. If collecting that information requires too > much

Re: [RFD] Functional dependencies between devices

On Tue, Oct 27, 2015 at 04:24:14PM +0100, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote: > So, the question to everybody is whether or not this sounds reasonable or > there > are concerns about it and if so what they are. At this point I mostly need to > know if I'm not overlooking anything fundamental at the

Re: [RFD] Functional dependencies between devices

On Wednesday, October 28, 2015 03:26:14 PM Tomeu Vizoso wrote: > On 28 October 2015 at 03:15, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote: > > On Tuesday, October 27, 2015 04:20:51 PM Tomeu Vizoso wrote: > >> On 27 October 2015 at 16:24, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote: > >> > Hi All, > >> > > >> > As discussed in the

Re: [RFD] Functional dependencies between devices

On 28 October 2015 at 03:15, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote: > On Tuesday, October 27, 2015 04:20:51 PM Tomeu Vizoso wrote: >> On 27 October 2015 at 16:24, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote: >> > Hi All, >> > >> > As discussed in the recent "On-demand device probing" thread and in a >> > Kernel >> > Summit

Re: [RFD] Functional dependencies between devices

On Wednesday, October 28, 2015 03:26:14 PM Tomeu Vizoso wrote: > On 28 October 2015 at 03:15, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote: > > On Tuesday, October 27, 2015 04:20:51 PM Tomeu Vizoso wrote: > >> On 27 October 2015 at 16:24, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote: > >> > Hi

Re: [RFD] Functional dependencies between devices

On 28 October 2015 at 03:15, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote: > On Tuesday, October 27, 2015 04:20:51 PM Tomeu Vizoso wrote: >> On 27 October 2015 at 16:24, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote: >> > Hi All, >> > >> > As discussed in the recent "On-demand device probing"

Re: [RFD] Functional dependencies between devices

On Tue, Oct 27, 2015 at 04:24:14PM +0100, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote: > So, the question to everybody is whether or not this sounds reasonable or > there > are concerns about it and if so what they are. At this point I mostly need to > know if I'm not overlooking anything fundamental at the

Re: [RFD] Functional dependencies between devices

On Wed, Oct 28, 2015 at 04:54:04PM +0100, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote: > Information that is already available at the device registration time should > be used at that time or it makes things harder to follow. > But that really is a tradeoff. If collecting that information requires too > much

Re: [RFD] Functional dependencies between devices

On Tuesday, October 27, 2015 04:20:51 PM Tomeu Vizoso wrote: > On 27 October 2015 at 16:24, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote: > > Hi All, > > > > As discussed in the recent "On-demand device probing" thread and in a Kernel > > Summit session earlier today, there is a problem with handling cases where > >

Re: [RFD] Functional dependencies between devices

On 27 October 2015 at 16:24, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote: > Hi All, > > As discussed in the recent "On-demand device probing" thread and in a Kernel > Summit session earlier today, there is a problem with handling cases where > functional dependencies between devices are involved. > > What I mean by

[RFD] Functional dependencies between devices

Hi All, As discussed in the recent "On-demand device probing" thread and in a Kernel Summit session earlier today, there is a problem with handling cases where functional dependencies between devices are involved. What I mean by a "functional dependency" is when the driver of device B needs both

[RFD] Functional dependencies between devices

Hi All, As discussed in the recent "On-demand device probing" thread and in a Kernel Summit session earlier today, there is a problem with handling cases where functional dependencies between devices are involved. What I mean by a "functional dependency" is when the driver of device B needs both

Re: [RFD] Functional dependencies between devices

On 27 October 2015 at 16:24, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote: > Hi All, > > As discussed in the recent "On-demand device probing" thread and in a Kernel > Summit session earlier today, there is a problem with handling cases where > functional dependencies between devices are involved.

Re: [RFD] Functional dependencies between devices

On Tuesday, October 27, 2015 04:20:51 PM Tomeu Vizoso wrote: > On 27 October 2015 at 16:24, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote: > > Hi All, > > > > As discussed in the recent "On-demand device probing" thread and in a Kernel > > Summit session earlier today, there is a problem with