On 13-12-17, 10:33, Russell King - ARM Linux wrote:
> On Wed, Dec 13, 2017 at 03:57:07PM +0530, Viresh Kumar wrote:
> > On 13-12-17, 10:53, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote:
> > > On Sun, Oct 29, 2017 at 07:18:56PM +0530, Viresh Kumar wrote:
> > > > +static void add_deferrable_of_single(struct device_node
On Wed, Dec 13, 2017 at 03:57:07PM +0530, Viresh Kumar wrote:
> On 13-12-17, 10:53, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote:
> > On Sun, Oct 29, 2017 at 07:18:56PM +0530, Viresh Kumar wrote:
> > > +static void add_deferrable_of_single(struct device_node *np,
> > > + struct dev_boot_co
On 13-12-17, 10:53, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote:
> On Sun, Oct 29, 2017 at 07:18:56PM +0530, Viresh Kumar wrote:
> > +static void add_deferrable_of_single(struct device_node *np,
> > +struct dev_boot_constraint *constraints,
> > +int coun
On Sun, Oct 29, 2017 at 07:18:56PM +0530, Viresh Kumar wrote:
> It is possible that some of the resources aren't available at the time
> constraints are getting set and the boot constraints core will return
> -EPROBE_DEFER for them. In order to retry adding the constraints at a
> later point of tim
On 31 October 2017 at 16:20, Rob Herring wrote:
> What is the effect on boot time? It's highly platform dependent, but
> the worst case could be pretty bad I think.
Yeah, it can increase considerably here and I have plans for that, just
that i didn't wanted to get them in the first iteration to k
On Sun, Oct 29, 2017 at 8:48 AM, Viresh Kumar wrote:
> It is possible that some of the resources aren't available at the time
> constraints are getting set and the boot constraints core will return
> -EPROBE_DEFER for them. In order to retry adding the constraints at a
> later point of time (after
It is possible that some of the resources aren't available at the time
constraints are getting set and the boot constraints core will return
-EPROBE_DEFER for them. In order to retry adding the constraints at a
later point of time (after the resource is added and before any of its
users come up), t
7 matches
Mail list logo
