[lkml]   [2011]   [Oct]   [13]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
SubjectRe: [PATCH 2/5] drivercore: Add driver probe deferral mechanism
On Thu, Oct 13, 2011 at 02:16:42PM -0400, Alan Stern wrote:
> On Thu, 13 Oct 2011, Grant Likely wrote:
> > For the deferred case; here is an example of the additional
> > constraint. Consider the following hierarchy:
> >
> > -A
> > +-B
> > | +-C
> > | +-D
> > |
> > +-E
> > +-F
> > +-G
> >
> > dpm_list could be ordered in at least the following ways (depending on
> > exactly when devices get registered). There are many permutation, but
> > children are always be listed after its direct parent.
> >
> > 1) ABECDFG (breadth first)
> > 2) AEBFGCD (breadth first)
> > 3) ABCDEFG (depth first)
> > 4) AEFGBCD (depth first)
> >
> > Now, assume that device B depends on device F, and also assume that
> > there is no way either to express that in the hierarchy or even for
> > the constraint to be known at device registration time (the is exactly
> > the situation we're dealing with on embedded platforms). Only the
> > driver for B knows that it needs a resource provided by F's driver.
> > So, the situation becomes that the ordering of dpm_list must now also
> > be sorted so that non-tree dependencies are also accounted for. Of
> > the list above, only sort order 4 meets the new constraint.
> >
> > The question then becomes, how can the dpm_list get resorted
> > dynamically at runtime to ensure that the new constraints are always
> > met without breaking old ones. Here are some options I can think of:
> This was a long message and I haven't absorbed the whole thing.

heh; I did get rather verbose there.

> However it's worth pointing out right at the start that we already have
> device_pm_move_before(), device_pm_move_after(), and
> device_pm_move_last(). They are intended specifically to provide
> drivers with a way of making sure that dpm_list is in the right order
> -- people have been aware of these issues for some time.

I saw those. I also notice that they are only used by device_move()
when reparenting a device (which is another wrinkle I hadn't though
about). Reparenting a device becomes problematic if the probe order
is also represented in the list. If device_move() gets called, then
any implicit probe-order sorting for that device would be lost.

I also notice that device_move disregards any children when moving a
device, which could also be a problem.

Although it looks like the only users of device_move are:


So it may not be significant to adapt.


 \ /
  Last update: 2011-10-13 20:31    [W:0.072 / U:13.340 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site