From owner-cvs-all@FreeBSD.ORG Tue Sep 25 11:03:42 2007 Return-Path: Delivered-To: cvs-all@FreeBSD.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:4f8:fff6::34]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id EFA8C16A420; Tue, 25 Sep 2007 11:03:42 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from dfr@rabson.org) Received: from mail.qubesoft.com (gate.qubesoft.com [217.169.36.34]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6A2EF13C4A7; Tue, 25 Sep 2007 11:03:42 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from dfr@rabson.org) Received: from doug01 (doug01.dyn.qubesoft.com [10.201.19.247]) by mail.qubesoft.com (8.13.3/8.13.3) with SMTP id l8PAoXgb056518; Tue, 25 Sep 2007 11:50:42 +0100 (BST) (envelope-from dfr@rabson.org) Message-ID: <073501c7ff61$eae2c830$f713c90a@doug01> From: "Doug Rabson" To: "Attilio Rao" , "John Baldwin" References: <200709112254.l8BMsB7P074637@repoman.freebsd.org> <200709211436.15444.jhb@freebsd.org> <3bbf2fe10709211338j6dbab59am1ad67c86c1a05baa@mail.gmail.com> <200709241147.49288.jhb@freebsd.org> <3bbf2fe10709241025r4e0d25c6x328ac21dc6bc99c@mail.gmail.com> Date: Tue, 25 Sep 2007 11:50:28 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed; charset="utf-8"; reply-type=original Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2900.3138 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2900.3138 X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.8 required=5.0 tests=ALL_TRUSTED autolearn=failed version=3.0.4 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.0.4 (2005-06-05) on mail.qubesoft.com X-Virus-Scanned: ClamAV 0.86.2/4388/Tue Sep 25 03:51:32 2007 on mail.qubesoft.com X-Virus-Status: Clean Cc: cvs-src@FreeBSD.org, src-committers@FreeBSD.org, cvs-all@FreeBSD.org Subject: Re: cvs commit: src/sys/amd64/amd64 local_apic.c src/sys/i386/acpica madt.c src/sys/i386/i386 local_apic.c src/sys/kern subr_smp.c src/sys/sun4v/mdesc mdesc_init.c X-BeenThere: cvs-all@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: CVS commit messages for the entire tree List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 25 Sep 2007 11:03:43 -0000 From: "Attilio Rao" >> See above. Are you going to go throw and assign a static order to ever >> device >> driver now just in case the one's registration routine might someday >> depend >> on another? > > Yes, and it doesn't sound so unreasonable. It sounds silly to me. The only ordering requirement for registering drivers is that they should be registered before their parent bus is probed. This is simply accomplished by registering *all* drivers in one phase and then probing the device tree in a subsequent phase. Adding any extra ordering to this is pointless. If two drivers have dependancies that requires them to be registered in a specific order, then my first reaction would be that they are doing something very wrong indeed. The only thing which changes if two drivers are registered in one order or another is the order that they will be offered devices during the probe. Drivers that depend on probe ordering with respect to other drivers are usually broken.