[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.64.0903251117220.5795@axis700.grange>
Date: Wed, 25 Mar 2009 11:23:30 +0100 (CET)
From: Guennadi Liakhovetski <g.liakhovetski@....de>
To: Ming Lei <tom.leiming@...il.com>
cc: kay.sievers@...y.org, Greg KH <greg@...ah.com>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, arjan@...ux.intel.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH] driver core: check bus->match without holding device
lock
On Wed, 25 Mar 2009, Ming Lei wrote:
> >> > Now, without .match() no probing is done. Is this an intended change and
> >> > soc-camera has to be fixed or is this a bug?
> >>
> >> It is not a driver-core bug, and soc-camera should be fixed.
> >
> > So, you're saying this used to be a bug and it has been fixed by this
> > patch? Then why isn't this mentioned in the commit message? The commit
> > text seems to suggest, that this patch shouldn't introduce any change in
> > behaviour, but it does. So, before .match == NULL lead to .probe() being
> > called, and now it doesn't anymore?
>
> Where is soc-camera driver in kernel tree?
drivers/media/video/soc_camera.c
> Which bus is soc-camera device (driver) attached to ?
camera bus.
> Why doesn't soc-camera driver have a match method?
Why should it? Because there is only one driver on this bus by definition
(and I only register a device on the bus when I find a match between a
device and its parent / driver).
What I in any case see wrong with this patch, is that it _silently_
changes kernel behaviour without even mentioning it in the commit log!
Thanks
Guennadi
---
Guennadi Liakhovetski, Ph.D.
Freelance Open-Source Software Developer
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists