[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20110705163628.GB31984@suse.de>
Date: Tue, 5 Jul 2011 09:36:28 -0700
From: Greg KH <gregkh@...e.de>
To: Grant Likely <grant.likely@...retlab.ca>
Cc: Kay Sievers <kay.sievers@...y.org>, 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 05, 2011 at 10:28:37AM -0600, Grant Likely wrote:
> 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.
No, the bus that wants this just has to do it, not the drivers
themselves, right?
--
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