lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2011]   [Sep]   [22]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: [RFC PATCH v3] drivercore: Add driver probe deferral mechanism
On 09/22/2011 01:29 PM, Alan Cox wrote:
> 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.
>

Do you mean explicitly kick the queue?

How would a given driver know that something else is waiting for it? Or
would we add the explicit kick to each and every driver in the tree?


> 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'

I think it probably is O(N²), but N is small...



> --
> To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
> the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
> More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
> Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
>

--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2011-09-22 23:21    [W:0.197 / U:0.380 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site