Re: [PATCH 10/10] drivers: misc: use module_platform_driver_probe()
From: Fabio Porcedda
Date: Wed Mar 20 2013 - 05:02:53 EST
On Tue, Mar 19, 2013 at 6:59 PM, Arnd Bergmann <arnd@xxxxxxxx> wrote:
> On Tuesday 19 March 2013, Fabio Porcedda wrote:
>> On Tue, Mar 19, 2013 at 5:48 PM, Arnd Bergmann <arnd@xxxxxxxx> wrote:
>> > On Tuesday 19 March 2013, Geert Uytterhoeven wrote:
>> >> Hmm, so we may have drivers that (now) work perfectly fine with
>> >> module_platform_driver_probe()/platform_driver_probe(), but will start
>> >> failing suddenly in the future?
>> > They will fail if someone changes the initialization order. That would
>> > already break drivers before deferred probing support (and was the reason
>> > we added feature in the first place), but now we can be much more liberal
>> > with the order in which drivers are initialized, except when they are
>> > using platform_driver_probe()
>> >> I guess we need a big fat WARN_ON(-EPROBE_DEFER) in
>> >> platform_driver_probe() to catch these?
>> > Yes, very good idea.
>> If it's fine, I'll send a patch for that.
> That would be cool, yes. I looked at it earlier (after sending my email above)
> and couldn't find an easy way to do it though, because platform_drv_probe
> does not know whether it is called from platform_driver_probe or not.
> Maybe using something other than platform_driver_register would work here.
I think we can check inside the deferred_probe_work_func()
if the dev->probe function pointer is equal to platform_drv_probe_fail().
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/