From: Alan Cox <alan@lxorguk.ukuu.org.uk>
To: Grant Likely <grant.likely@secretlab.ca>
Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org,
Greg Kroah-Hartman <greg@kroah.com>, Dilan Lee <dilee@nvidia.com>,
Mark Brown <broonie@opensource.wolfsonmicro.com>,
Manjunath GKondaiah <manjunath.gkondaiah@linaro.org>,
Arnd Bergmann <arnd@arndb.de>
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH v3] drivercore: Add driver probe deferral mechanism
Date: Thu, 22 Sep 2011 21:29:09 +0100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20110922212909.49966cf4@lxorguk.ukuu.org.uk> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20110922184614.25419.84606.stgit@ponder>
Definitely what is needed for some of the x86 SoC stuff and would let us
rip out some of the special case magic for the SCU discovery.
First thing that strikes me is driver_bound kicks the processing queue
again. That seems odd - surely this isn't needed because any driver that
does initialise this time and may allow something else to get going will
queue the kick itself. Thus this seems to just add overhead.
It all looks a bit O(N²) if we don't expect the drivers that might
trigger something else binding to just say 'hey I'm one of the
troublemakers'
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2011-09-22 20:30 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 32+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2011-09-22 18:51 Grant Likely
2011-09-22 18:58 ` Joe Perches
2011-09-22 19:28 ` David Daney
2011-09-22 20:29 ` Alan Cox [this message]
2011-09-22 21:19 ` Grant Likely
2011-09-23 17:50 ` Valdis.Kletnieks
2011-09-23 23:18 ` Grant Likely
2011-09-22 21:19 ` David Daney
2011-09-22 22:47 ` Alan Cox
2011-09-23 5:02 ` Grant Likely
2011-09-23 16:55 ` David Daney
2011-09-26 14:16 ` Mark Brown
2011-09-26 15:12 ` Russell King - ARM Linux
2011-09-26 15:26 ` Mark Brown
2011-09-26 15:48 ` Grant Likely
2011-09-27 13:50 ` Arnd Bergmann
2011-09-27 21:08 ` Grant Likely
2011-09-27 22:13 ` Mark Brown
2011-09-28 13:04 ` Arnd Bergmann
2011-09-28 13:20 ` Mark Brown
2011-09-28 23:14 ` Grant Likely
2011-09-29 11:00 ` Mark Brown
2011-10-03 23:02 ` Kevin Hilman
2011-10-04 15:52 ` Grant Likely
2011-10-04 14:51 ` G, Manjunath Kondaiah
2011-10-04 15:58 ` Grant Likely
2011-10-04 18:35 ` G, Manjunath Kondaiah
2011-10-04 23:35 ` Grant Likely
2011-10-07 3:31 ` G, Manjunath Kondaiah
2011-10-11 20:47 ` Andrew Morton
2011-10-11 21:07 ` David Daney
2011-10-13 4:19 ` Grant Likely
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=20110922212909.49966cf4@lxorguk.ukuu.org.uk \
--to=alan@lxorguk.ukuu.org.uk \
--cc=arnd@arndb.de \
--cc=broonie@opensource.wolfsonmicro.com \
--cc=dilee@nvidia.com \
--cc=grant.likely@secretlab.ca \
--cc=greg@kroah.com \
--cc=linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=manjunath.gkondaiah@linaro.org \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox
all inboxes | Powered by JetHome®