On Sun, Nov 22, 2020 at 03:13:15AM +0100, Marek Vasut wrote:
On 11/22/20 12:07 AM, Simon Glass wrote: [...]
That way we are describing the property of the device rather than what we want to do with it.
The device is not critical or vital, it just needs to be torn down late.
What is it about the device that requires it to be torn down 'late'?
I think perhaps the problem isn't that it needs to be "late", it's that it has perhaps not obviously described children. Which gets back to what you just said as well about "later" and "fairly late". It's an ordering problem.
Yes it is.
We currently don't record devices that depend on others. It would be possible to add a refcount to DM to cope with this and implement it for clocks. I wonder if that might be better than what we have here?
This is still a bootloader, not a general-purpose OS, so I would argue we should not complicate this more than is necessary. The DM already adds a lot of bloat to U-Boot, no need to make that worse unless there is a real good reason for that. Also, in V1 of this patch, Simon did suggest that a simple approach is OK if I recall correctly.
Perhaps now that it's clear to everyone what "late" means in this context, we can just solve it with a flag + documentation that ...whatever the name is... means that it's for ensuring that we have unwound the other parts of the system which require this to be enabled first.