Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > linux.kernel > #1233259 > unrolled thread

Re: [PATCH v6 0/22] On-demand device probing

Back to article view | Back to linux.kernel

This discussion starts older than the indexed window; earlier articles aren't shown. The article labeled Started by below is the oldest one visible, not the original post.

Contents

  Re: [PATCH v6 0/22] On-demand device probing Rob Herring <robh@kernel.org> - 2015-09-26 20:20 +0200
    Re: [PATCH v6 0/22] On-demand device probing Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org> - 2015-09-26 21:30 +0200
      Re: [PATCH v6 0/22] On-demand device probing Tomeu Vizoso <tomeu.vizoso@collabora.com> - 2015-09-30 12:20 +0200
        Re: [PATCH v6 0/22] On-demand device probing Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org> - 2015-09-30 12:30 +0200
    Re: [PATCH v6 0/22] On-demand device probing Tomeu Vizoso <tomeu.vizoso@collabora.com> - 2015-09-29 10:10 +0200

#1233259 — Re: [PATCH v6 0/22] On-demand device probing

On 09/21/2015 09:02 AM, Tomeu Vizoso wrote:
> Hello,
> 
> I have a problem with the panel on my Tegra Chromebook taking longer
> than expected to be ready during boot (Stéphane Marchesin reported what
> is basically the same issue in [0]), and have looked into ordered
> probing as a better way of solving this than moving nodes around in the
> DT or playing with initcall levels and linking order.
> 
> While reading the thread [1] that Alexander Holler started with his
> series to make probing order deterministic, it occurred to me that it
> should be possible to achieve the same by probing devices as they are
> referenced by other devices.
> 
> This basically reuses the information that is already implicit in the
> probe() implementations, saving us from refactoring existing drivers or
> adding information to DTBs.
> 
> During review of v1 of this series Linus Walleij suggested that it
> should be the device driver core to make sure that dependencies are
> ready before probing a device. I gave this idea a try [2] but Mark Brown
> pointed out to the logic duplication between the resource acquisition
> and dependency discovery code paths (though I think it's fairly minor).
> 
> To address that code duplication I experimented with Arnd's devm_probe
> [3] concept of having drivers declare their dependencies instead of
> acquiring them during probe, and while it worked [4], I don't think we
> end up winning anything when compared to just probing devices on-demand
> from resource getters.
> 
> One remaining objection is to the "sprinkling" of calls to
> of_device_probe() in the resource getters of each subsystem, but I think
> it's the right thing to do given that the storage of resources is
> currently subsystem-specific.
> 
> We could avoid the above by moving resource storage into the core, but I
> don't think there's a compelling case for that.
> 
> I have tested this on boards with Tegra, iMX.6, Exynos, Rockchip and
> OMAP SoCs, and these patches were enough to eliminate all the deferred
> probes (except one in PandaBoard because omap_dma_system doesn't have a
> firmware node as of yet).
> 
> Have submitted a branch [5][6][7] with these patches on top of today's
> linux-next (20150921) to kernelci.org and I don't see any issues that
> could be caused by them.
> 
> With this series I get the kernel to output to the panel in 0.5s,
> instead of 2.8s.

I think we're pretty close other than some minor comments. I would like
to see ack's from Greg and some reviewed-bys from others. The subsystem
changes are minor and there has been plenty of chance to comment, so I
don't think acks from all subsystems are needed.

Your branch is based on -next. Is there any dependence on something in
-next? I want to get this into -next soon, but need a branch not based
on -next. Please send me a pull request with the collected acks and
minor comments I have addressed.

Rob

> 
> Regards,
> 
> Tomeu
> 
> [0] http://lists.freedesktop.org/archives/dri-devel/2014-August/066527.html
> 
> [1] https://lkml.org/lkml/2014/5/12/452
> 
> [2] https://lkml.org/lkml/2015/6/17/305
> 
> [3] http://article.gmane.org/gmane.linux.ports.arm.kernel/277689
> 
> [4] https://lkml.org/lkml/2015/7/21/441a
> 
> [5] https://git.collabora.com/cgit/user/tomeu/linux.git/log/?h=on-demand-probes-v8
> 
> [6] http://kernelci.org/boot/all/job/collabora/kernel/v4.3-rc2-2587-gf92b0ab33d14/
> 
> [7] http://kernelci.org/boot/all/job/next/kernel/next-20150921
> 
> Changes in v6:
> - Drop bus_type.pre_probe and read the periphid in match() instead as
>   suggested by Alan Stern.
> - Merge changes to the regulator subsystem's locking so no references
>   are leaked between commits.
> 
> Changes in v5:
> - Set the pointer to struct device also for AMBA devices
> - Unset the pointer to struct device when the platform device is about
>   to be unregistered
> - Increase the reference count of the device before returning from
>   of_find_device_by_node()
> - Move the assignment to device_node->device for AMBA devices to another
>   commit.
> - Hold a reference to the struct device while it's in use in
>   of_device_probe().
> - Use regulator_class' klist of devices instead of regulator_list to
>   store and lookup regulator devices.
> 
> Changes in v4:
> - Added bus.pre_probe callback so the probes of Primecell devices can be
>   deferred if their device IDs cannot be yet read because of the clock
>   driver not having probed when they are registered. Maybe this goes
>   overboard and the matching information should be in the DT if there is
>   one.
> - Rename of_platform_probe to of_device_probe
> - Use device_node.device instead of device_node.platform_dev
> - Add Kconfig DELAY_DEVICE_PROBES to allow disabling delayed probing in
>   machines with initcalls that depend on devices probing at a given time.
> - Start processing deferred probes in device_initcall_sync
> - Also defer probes of AMBA devices registered from the DT as they can
>   also request resources.
> 
> Changes in v3:
> - Set and use device_node.platform_dev instead of reversing the logic to
>   find the platform device that encloses a device node.
> - Drop the fwnode API to probe firmware nodes and add OF-only API for
>   now. I think this same scheme could be used for machines with ACPI,
>   but I haven't been able to find one that had to defer its probes because
>   of the device probe order.
> 
> Tomeu Vizoso (22):
>   driver core: handle -EPROBE_DEFER from bus_type.match()
>   ARM: amba: Move reading of periphid to amba_match()
>   of/platform: Point to struct device from device node
>   of: add function to allow probing a device from a OF node
>   gpio: Probe GPIO drivers on demand
>   gpio: Probe pinctrl devices on demand
>   regulator: core: Remove regulator_list
>   regulator: core: Probe regulators on demand
>   drm: Probe panels on demand
>   drm/tegra: Probe dpaux devices on demand
>   i2c: core: Probe i2c adapters and devices on demand
>   pwm: Probe PWM chip devices on demand
>   backlight: Probe backlight devices on demand
>   usb: phy: Probe phy devices on demand
>   clk: Probe clk providers on demand
>   pinctrl: Probe pinctrl devices on demand
>   phy: core: Probe phy providers on demand
>   dma: of: Probe DMA controllers on demand
>   power-supply: Probe power supplies on demand
>   driver core: Allow deferring probes until late init
>   driver core: Start processing deferred probes earlier
>   of/platform: Defer probes of registered devices
> 
>  drivers/amba/bus.c                  |  88 ++++++------
>  drivers/base/Kconfig                |  18 +++
>  drivers/base/dd.c                   |  35 ++++-
>  drivers/clk/clk.c                   |   3 +
>  drivers/dma/of-dma.c                |   3 +
>  drivers/gpio/gpiolib-of.c           |   5 +
>  drivers/gpu/drm/drm_panel.c         |   3 +
>  drivers/gpu/drm/tegra/dpaux.c       |   3 +
>  drivers/i2c/i2c-core.c              |   4 +
>  drivers/of/device.c                 |  61 +++++++++
>  drivers/of/platform.c               |  30 +++--
>  drivers/phy/phy-core.c              |   3 +
>  drivers/pinctrl/devicetree.c        |   3 +
>  drivers/power/power_supply_core.c   |   3 +
>  drivers/pwm/core.c                  |   3 +
>  drivers/regulator/core.c            | 257 +++++++++++++++++++++++-------------
>  drivers/usb/phy/phy.c               |   3 +
>  drivers/video/backlight/backlight.c |   3 +
>  include/linux/device.h              |   4 +-
>  include/linux/of.h                  |   1 +
>  include/linux/of_device.h           |   3 +
>  21 files changed, 386 insertions(+), 150 deletions(-)
> 

--
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/

[toc] | [next] | [standalone]

#1233270

On Sat, Sep 26, 2015 at 01:17:04PM -0500, Rob Herring wrote:
> On 09/21/2015 09:02 AM, Tomeu Vizoso wrote:
> > Hello,
> > 
> > I have a problem with the panel on my Tegra Chromebook taking longer
> > than expected to be ready during boot (Stéphane Marchesin reported what
> > is basically the same issue in [0]), and have looked into ordered
> > probing as a better way of solving this than moving nodes around in the
> > DT or playing with initcall levels and linking order.
> > 
> > While reading the thread [1] that Alexander Holler started with his
> > series to make probing order deterministic, it occurred to me that it
> > should be possible to achieve the same by probing devices as they are
> > referenced by other devices.
> > 
> > This basically reuses the information that is already implicit in the
> > probe() implementations, saving us from refactoring existing drivers or
> > adding information to DTBs.
> > 
> > During review of v1 of this series Linus Walleij suggested that it
> > should be the device driver core to make sure that dependencies are
> > ready before probing a device. I gave this idea a try [2] but Mark Brown
> > pointed out to the logic duplication between the resource acquisition
> > and dependency discovery code paths (though I think it's fairly minor).
> > 
> > To address that code duplication I experimented with Arnd's devm_probe
> > [3] concept of having drivers declare their dependencies instead of
> > acquiring them during probe, and while it worked [4], I don't think we
> > end up winning anything when compared to just probing devices on-demand
> > from resource getters.
> > 
> > One remaining objection is to the "sprinkling" of calls to
> > of_device_probe() in the resource getters of each subsystem, but I think
> > it's the right thing to do given that the storage of resources is
> > currently subsystem-specific.
> > 
> > We could avoid the above by moving resource storage into the core, but I
> > don't think there's a compelling case for that.
> > 
> > I have tested this on boards with Tegra, iMX.6, Exynos, Rockchip and
> > OMAP SoCs, and these patches were enough to eliminate all the deferred
> > probes (except one in PandaBoard because omap_dma_system doesn't have a
> > firmware node as of yet).
> > 
> > Have submitted a branch [5][6][7] with these patches on top of today's
> > linux-next (20150921) to kernelci.org and I don't see any issues that
> > could be caused by them.
> > 
> > With this series I get the kernel to output to the panel in 0.5s,
> > instead of 2.8s.
> 
> I think we're pretty close other than some minor comments. I would like
> to see ack's from Greg and some reviewed-bys from others. The subsystem
> changes are minor and there has been plenty of chance to comment, so I
> don't think acks from all subsystems are needed.
> 
> Your branch is based on -next. Is there any dependence on something in
> -next? I want to get this into -next soon, but need a branch not based
> on -next. Please send me a pull request with the collected acks and
> minor comments I have addressed.

Let me review this on Monday and I'll let you know...

thanks,

greg k-h
--
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/

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#1236031

On 26 September 2015 at 21:22, Greg Kroah-Hartman
<gregkh@linuxfoundation.org> wrote:
> On Sat, Sep 26, 2015 at 01:17:04PM -0500, Rob Herring wrote:
>> On 09/21/2015 09:02 AM, Tomeu Vizoso wrote:
>> > Hello,
>> >
>> > I have a problem with the panel on my Tegra Chromebook taking longer
>> > than expected to be ready during boot (Stéphane Marchesin reported what
>> > is basically the same issue in [0]), and have looked into ordered
>> > probing as a better way of solving this than moving nodes around in the
>> > DT or playing with initcall levels and linking order.
>> >
>> > While reading the thread [1] that Alexander Holler started with his
>> > series to make probing order deterministic, it occurred to me that it
>> > should be possible to achieve the same by probing devices as they are
>> > referenced by other devices.
>> >
>> > This basically reuses the information that is already implicit in the
>> > probe() implementations, saving us from refactoring existing drivers or
>> > adding information to DTBs.
>> >
>> > During review of v1 of this series Linus Walleij suggested that it
>> > should be the device driver core to make sure that dependencies are
>> > ready before probing a device. I gave this idea a try [2] but Mark Brown
>> > pointed out to the logic duplication between the resource acquisition
>> > and dependency discovery code paths (though I think it's fairly minor).
>> >
>> > To address that code duplication I experimented with Arnd's devm_probe
>> > [3] concept of having drivers declare their dependencies instead of
>> > acquiring them during probe, and while it worked [4], I don't think we
>> > end up winning anything when compared to just probing devices on-demand
>> > from resource getters.
>> >
>> > One remaining objection is to the "sprinkling" of calls to
>> > of_device_probe() in the resource getters of each subsystem, but I think
>> > it's the right thing to do given that the storage of resources is
>> > currently subsystem-specific.
>> >
>> > We could avoid the above by moving resource storage into the core, but I
>> > don't think there's a compelling case for that.
>> >
>> > I have tested this on boards with Tegra, iMX.6, Exynos, Rockchip and
>> > OMAP SoCs, and these patches were enough to eliminate all the deferred
>> > probes (except one in PandaBoard because omap_dma_system doesn't have a
>> > firmware node as of yet).
>> >
>> > Have submitted a branch [5][6][7] with these patches on top of today's
>> > linux-next (20150921) to kernelci.org and I don't see any issues that
>> > could be caused by them.
>> >
>> > With this series I get the kernel to output to the panel in 0.5s,
>> > instead of 2.8s.
>>
>> I think we're pretty close other than some minor comments. I would like
>> to see ack's from Greg and some reviewed-bys from others. The subsystem
>> changes are minor and there has been plenty of chance to comment, so I
>> don't think acks from all subsystems are needed.
>>
>> Your branch is based on -next. Is there any dependence on something in
>> -next? I want to get this into -next soon, but need a branch not based
>> on -next. Please send me a pull request with the collected acks and
>> minor comments I have addressed.
>
> Let me review this on Monday and I'll let you know...

Hi Greg, hope you don't mind that I ping you regarding this, just in
case it fell through some crack.

Regards,

Tomeu

> thanks,
>
> greg k-h
> --
> 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/

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#1236061

On Wed, Sep 30, 2015 at 12:09:27PM +0200, Tomeu Vizoso wrote:
> On 26 September 2015 at 21:22, Greg Kroah-Hartman
> <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org> wrote:
> > On Sat, Sep 26, 2015 at 01:17:04PM -0500, Rob Herring wrote:
> >> On 09/21/2015 09:02 AM, Tomeu Vizoso wrote:
> >> > Hello,
> >> >
> >> > I have a problem with the panel on my Tegra Chromebook taking longer
> >> > than expected to be ready during boot (Stéphane Marchesin reported what
> >> > is basically the same issue in [0]), and have looked into ordered
> >> > probing as a better way of solving this than moving nodes around in the
> >> > DT or playing with initcall levels and linking order.
> >> >
> >> > While reading the thread [1] that Alexander Holler started with his
> >> > series to make probing order deterministic, it occurred to me that it
> >> > should be possible to achieve the same by probing devices as they are
> >> > referenced by other devices.
> >> >
> >> > This basically reuses the information that is already implicit in the
> >> > probe() implementations, saving us from refactoring existing drivers or
> >> > adding information to DTBs.
> >> >
> >> > During review of v1 of this series Linus Walleij suggested that it
> >> > should be the device driver core to make sure that dependencies are
> >> > ready before probing a device. I gave this idea a try [2] but Mark Brown
> >> > pointed out to the logic duplication between the resource acquisition
> >> > and dependency discovery code paths (though I think it's fairly minor).
> >> >
> >> > To address that code duplication I experimented with Arnd's devm_probe
> >> > [3] concept of having drivers declare their dependencies instead of
> >> > acquiring them during probe, and while it worked [4], I don't think we
> >> > end up winning anything when compared to just probing devices on-demand
> >> > from resource getters.
> >> >
> >> > One remaining objection is to the "sprinkling" of calls to
> >> > of_device_probe() in the resource getters of each subsystem, but I think
> >> > it's the right thing to do given that the storage of resources is
> >> > currently subsystem-specific.
> >> >
> >> > We could avoid the above by moving resource storage into the core, but I
> >> > don't think there's a compelling case for that.
> >> >
> >> > I have tested this on boards with Tegra, iMX.6, Exynos, Rockchip and
> >> > OMAP SoCs, and these patches were enough to eliminate all the deferred
> >> > probes (except one in PandaBoard because omap_dma_system doesn't have a
> >> > firmware node as of yet).
> >> >
> >> > Have submitted a branch [5][6][7] with these patches on top of today's
> >> > linux-next (20150921) to kernelci.org and I don't see any issues that
> >> > could be caused by them.
> >> >
> >> > With this series I get the kernel to output to the panel in 0.5s,
> >> > instead of 2.8s.
> >>
> >> I think we're pretty close other than some minor comments. I would like
> >> to see ack's from Greg and some reviewed-bys from others. The subsystem
> >> changes are minor and there has been plenty of chance to comment, so I
> >> don't think acks from all subsystems are needed.
> >>
> >> Your branch is based on -next. Is there any dependence on something in
> >> -next? I want to get this into -next soon, but need a branch not based
> >> on -next. Please send me a pull request with the collected acks and
> >> minor comments I have addressed.
> >
> > Let me review this on Monday and I'll let you know...
> 
> Hi Greg, hope you don't mind that I ping you regarding this, just in
> case it fell through some crack.

It's on my todo list, sorry, am at a conference for the next few days,
didn't get to it on Monday, hopefully soon...

greg "my todo list is too long" k-h
--
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/

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#1234795

On 26 September 2015 at 20:17, Rob Herring <robh@kernel.org> wrote:
> On 09/21/2015 09:02 AM, Tomeu Vizoso wrote:
>> Hello,
>>
>> I have a problem with the panel on my Tegra Chromebook taking longer
>> than expected to be ready during boot (Stéphane Marchesin reported what
>> is basically the same issue in [0]), and have looked into ordered
>> probing as a better way of solving this than moving nodes around in the
>> DT or playing with initcall levels and linking order.
>>
>> While reading the thread [1] that Alexander Holler started with his
>> series to make probing order deterministic, it occurred to me that it
>> should be possible to achieve the same by probing devices as they are
>> referenced by other devices.
>>
>> This basically reuses the information that is already implicit in the
>> probe() implementations, saving us from refactoring existing drivers or
>> adding information to DTBs.
>>
>> During review of v1 of this series Linus Walleij suggested that it
>> should be the device driver core to make sure that dependencies are
>> ready before probing a device. I gave this idea a try [2] but Mark Brown
>> pointed out to the logic duplication between the resource acquisition
>> and dependency discovery code paths (though I think it's fairly minor).
>>
>> To address that code duplication I experimented with Arnd's devm_probe
>> [3] concept of having drivers declare their dependencies instead of
>> acquiring them during probe, and while it worked [4], I don't think we
>> end up winning anything when compared to just probing devices on-demand
>> from resource getters.
>>
>> One remaining objection is to the "sprinkling" of calls to
>> of_device_probe() in the resource getters of each subsystem, but I think
>> it's the right thing to do given that the storage of resources is
>> currently subsystem-specific.
>>
>> We could avoid the above by moving resource storage into the core, but I
>> don't think there's a compelling case for that.
>>
>> I have tested this on boards with Tegra, iMX.6, Exynos, Rockchip and
>> OMAP SoCs, and these patches were enough to eliminate all the deferred
>> probes (except one in PandaBoard because omap_dma_system doesn't have a
>> firmware node as of yet).
>>
>> Have submitted a branch [5][6][7] with these patches on top of today's
>> linux-next (20150921) to kernelci.org and I don't see any issues that
>> could be caused by them.
>>
>> With this series I get the kernel to output to the panel in 0.5s,
>> instead of 2.8s.
>
> I think we're pretty close other than some minor comments. I would like
> to see ack's from Greg and some reviewed-bys from others. The subsystem
> changes are minor and there has been plenty of chance to comment, so I
> don't think acks from all subsystems are needed.
>
> Your branch is based on -next. Is there any dependence on something in
> -next? I want to get this into -next soon, but need a branch not based
> on -next. Please send me a pull request with the collected acks and
> minor comments I have addressed.

Great, I'm going to send one more revision rebased on top of v4.3-rc1,
without 21 and with the minor changes you suggested, and once Greg is
happy I can send the pull request.

Thanks,

Tomeu

> Rob
>
>>
>> Regards,
>>
>> Tomeu
>>
>> [0] http://lists.freedesktop.org/archives/dri-devel/2014-August/066527.html
>>
>> [1] https://lkml.org/lkml/2014/5/12/452
>>
>> [2] https://lkml.org/lkml/2015/6/17/305
>>
>> [3] http://article.gmane.org/gmane.linux.ports.arm.kernel/277689
>>
>> [4] https://lkml.org/lkml/2015/7/21/441a
>>
>> [5] https://git.collabora.com/cgit/user/tomeu/linux.git/log/?h=on-demand-probes-v8
>>
>> [6] http://kernelci.org/boot/all/job/collabora/kernel/v4.3-rc2-2587-gf92b0ab33d14/
>>
>> [7] http://kernelci.org/boot/all/job/next/kernel/next-20150921
>>
>> Changes in v6:
>> - Drop bus_type.pre_probe and read the periphid in match() instead as
>>   suggested by Alan Stern.
>> - Merge changes to the regulator subsystem's locking so no references
>>   are leaked between commits.
>>
>> Changes in v5:
>> - Set the pointer to struct device also for AMBA devices
>> - Unset the pointer to struct device when the platform device is about
>>   to be unregistered
>> - Increase the reference count of the device before returning from
>>   of_find_device_by_node()
>> - Move the assignment to device_node->device for AMBA devices to another
>>   commit.
>> - Hold a reference to the struct device while it's in use in
>>   of_device_probe().
>> - Use regulator_class' klist of devices instead of regulator_list to
>>   store and lookup regulator devices.
>>
>> Changes in v4:
>> - Added bus.pre_probe callback so the probes of Primecell devices can be
>>   deferred if their device IDs cannot be yet read because of the clock
>>   driver not having probed when they are registered. Maybe this goes
>>   overboard and the matching information should be in the DT if there is
>>   one.
>> - Rename of_platform_probe to of_device_probe
>> - Use device_node.device instead of device_node.platform_dev
>> - Add Kconfig DELAY_DEVICE_PROBES to allow disabling delayed probing in
>>   machines with initcalls that depend on devices probing at a given time.
>> - Start processing deferred probes in device_initcall_sync
>> - Also defer probes of AMBA devices registered from the DT as they can
>>   also request resources.
>>
>> Changes in v3:
>> - Set and use device_node.platform_dev instead of reversing the logic to
>>   find the platform device that encloses a device node.
>> - Drop the fwnode API to probe firmware nodes and add OF-only API for
>>   now. I think this same scheme could be used for machines with ACPI,
>>   but I haven't been able to find one that had to defer its probes because
>>   of the device probe order.
>>
>> Tomeu Vizoso (22):
>>   driver core: handle -EPROBE_DEFER from bus_type.match()
>>   ARM: amba: Move reading of periphid to amba_match()
>>   of/platform: Point to struct device from device node
>>   of: add function to allow probing a device from a OF node
>>   gpio: Probe GPIO drivers on demand
>>   gpio: Probe pinctrl devices on demand
>>   regulator: core: Remove regulator_list
>>   regulator: core: Probe regulators on demand
>>   drm: Probe panels on demand
>>   drm/tegra: Probe dpaux devices on demand
>>   i2c: core: Probe i2c adapters and devices on demand
>>   pwm: Probe PWM chip devices on demand
>>   backlight: Probe backlight devices on demand
>>   usb: phy: Probe phy devices on demand
>>   clk: Probe clk providers on demand
>>   pinctrl: Probe pinctrl devices on demand
>>   phy: core: Probe phy providers on demand
>>   dma: of: Probe DMA controllers on demand
>>   power-supply: Probe power supplies on demand
>>   driver core: Allow deferring probes until late init
>>   driver core: Start processing deferred probes earlier
>>   of/platform: Defer probes of registered devices
>>
>>  drivers/amba/bus.c                  |  88 ++++++------
>>  drivers/base/Kconfig                |  18 +++
>>  drivers/base/dd.c                   |  35 ++++-
>>  drivers/clk/clk.c                   |   3 +
>>  drivers/dma/of-dma.c                |   3 +
>>  drivers/gpio/gpiolib-of.c           |   5 +
>>  drivers/gpu/drm/drm_panel.c         |   3 +
>>  drivers/gpu/drm/tegra/dpaux.c       |   3 +
>>  drivers/i2c/i2c-core.c              |   4 +
>>  drivers/of/device.c                 |  61 +++++++++
>>  drivers/of/platform.c               |  30 +++--
>>  drivers/phy/phy-core.c              |   3 +
>>  drivers/pinctrl/devicetree.c        |   3 +
>>  drivers/power/power_supply_core.c   |   3 +
>>  drivers/pwm/core.c                  |   3 +
>>  drivers/regulator/core.c            | 257 +++++++++++++++++++++++-------------
>>  drivers/usb/phy/phy.c               |   3 +
>>  drivers/video/backlight/backlight.c |   3 +
>>  include/linux/device.h              |   4 +-
>>  include/linux/of.h                  |   1 +
>>  include/linux/of_device.h           |   3 +
>>  21 files changed, 386 insertions(+), 150 deletions(-)
>>
>
> --
> 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/

[toc] | [prev] | [standalone]

Back to top | Article view | linux.kernel

csiph-web