[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CACxGe6sypBwP6aKoaxq1ipoEfqvnqq2RMhi9d0KU=LHjJm9x_g@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 5 Jul 2011 10:28:37 -0600
From: Grant Likely <grant.likely@...retlab.ca>
To: Kay Sievers <kay.sievers@...y.org>
Cc: Greg KH <gregkh@...e.de>, Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>,
Mark Brown <broonie@...nsource.wolfsonmicro.com>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@...k.pl>,
"David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] drivercore: Add driver probe deferral mechanism
On Tue, Jul 5, 2011 at 10:11 AM, Kay Sievers <kay.sievers@...y.org> wrote:
> On Tue, Jul 5, 2011 at 17:50, Greg KH <gregkh@...e.de> wrote:
>
>> I wonder if doing this all from a workqueue in the first place is going
>> to cause problems as probe isn't normally done this way at all.
>
> Yeah, I would expect unforeseen problems with the async thread too.
> It's probably all solvable, but it sounds troublesome to find out if
> things go wrong.
>
> We have sync hooks (BUS_NOTIFY_*) where any kind of code can subscribe
> to when devices get added or get bound to a driver. Can't the code
> that relies on later hookups to already existing devices/bindings not
> just plug into that?
I tried that. It resulted in a lot of complexity that each driver
needs to implement correctly which is why I started looking for a
different way to go about it.
g.
--
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