On Wed, Sep 08, 2010 at 10:44:32AM -0600, Grant Likely wrote:
> On Wed, Sep 08, 2010 at 05:22:51PM +0100, Mark Brown wrote:
> > Doing dependencies could get pretty complicated, especially once you
> > handle optional dependencies ("is this missing because it didn't probe
> > yet or because it's just not there?") so it's not entirely clear to me
> > that it's worth the hassle.
> I think it might be doable. I had a similar problem with Ethernet
> MACs and PHYs where the PHY was on a completely separate bus from the
> MAC with zero guarantees on probe order. I had some code that made it
> simple to use a bus notifier to defer MAC initialization until the
> required phy turned up and was probed. I eventually abandoned it
> because accessing the PHY could be deferred until .ndo_open() time.
> However, it would be easy to resurrect, and might be a reasonable
> solution. At the very least it is worth an investigation.
If you've got stuff that'd be great - ASoC also has a deferral mechanism
implemented due to this song and dance. Like I say, the main reason
I've never looked at it myself is that it's never been sufficiently much
of a practical problem for me to justify the effort.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
This SF.net Dev2Dev email is sponsored by:
Show off your parallel programming skills.
Enter the Intel(R) Threading Challenge 2010.
http://p.sf.net/sfu/intel-thread-sfd
_______________________________________________
spi-devel-general mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/spi-devel-general
