Re: [Ksummit-discuss] Self nomination

[Grant Likely <grant.likely@secretlab.ca>]

On Mon, Aug 8, 2016 at 12:07 PM, Lorenzo Pieralisi
<lorenzo.pieralisi@arm.com> wrote:
> On Thu, Jul 28, 2016 at 11:14:51AM +0100, Marc Zyngier wrote:
>> On 26/07/16 23:30, Dmitry Torokhov wrote:
>> > I'd like to nominate myself for the kernel summit this year. I am part
>> > of Chrome OS kernel team and I also maintain drivers/input in mainline.
>>
>> [...]
>>
>> > - I would like to sync up with people and discuss [lack of] progress
>> >   on topic of device probe ordering (including handling of deferred
>> >   probes, asynchronous probes, etc).
>>
>> I'm extremely interested in discussing this.
>>
>> It has wide reaching consequences as (with my irqchip maintainer hat on)
>> we've had to pretend that some bits of HW (timers, interrupt
>> controllers) are not "devices". Not a massive issue for most, except
>> when your interrupt controller has requirements that are very similar to
>> the DMA mapping API (which you cannot use because "not a device"). Other
>> problems are introduced by things like wire-MSI bridges, and most people
>> end-up resorting to hacks like ad-hoc initcalls and sprinkling deferred
>> probes in specific drivers.
>>
>> I've seen a number of proposal so far, but the subject seems to have
>> gone quiet (well, not really, but hardly any progress has been made).
>>
>> Happy to make this a tech discussion or a hallway track.
>
> I am very interested in this discussion too in whatever form it takes
> place and I really think it is the right time to find a way forward
> for DT and ACPI probing alike given that we have started facing
> these probe ordering issues in ARM/ACPI world too, it would be nice to
> find a solution that works seamlessly.

[Responding very late to this thread]

I also want to be involved with this discussion. We've got to come up
with something better than what we've got now.

g.