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?