On 10/23/2015 10:45 AM, Tim Bird wrote:
> I've been worried about DT overhead adding to boot time for a while.
> And IMHO probe deferral is just about the lamest way to solve boot
> order dependencies I can imagine, from a computer science perspective.
> (Well, there's a certain elegance to it, but it's a stupid "make
> everything re-doable, back up and start over, time-wasting" elegance.)
>

It has a bogosort kind of elegance. :)

Also this might be a silly question (I haven't been following this issue
for very long), but as the only place that can really know what devices
depend on each other, in a generic kernel, is the DT (or whatever
abstraction) will we not eventually need to solve this issue there? Could
we just add a "depends-on = <&phandle>;" to nodes when we know they are
needed for our board?