[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <201108221547.14657.arnd@arndb.de>
Date: Mon, 22 Aug 2011 15:47:14 +0200
From: Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>
To: sdharia@...eaurora.org
Cc: "Mark Brown" <broonie@...nsource.wolfsonmicro.com>,
"Kenneth Heitke" <kheitke@...eaurora.org>,
"David Brown" <davidb@...eaurora.org>, bryanh@...eaurora.org,
linux-arm-msm@...r.kernel.org, rdunlap@...otime.net,
rmk+kernel@....linux.org.uk, john.stultz@...aro.org,
akpm@...ux-foundation.org, ohad@...ery.com, gregkh@...e.de,
stefanr@...6.in-berlin.de, lethal@...ux-sh.org,
linville@...driver.com, zajec5@...il.com,
linux-doc@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH] slimbus: Linux driver framework for SLIMbus.
On Monday 22 August 2011, Sagar Dharia wrote:
> Another suggestion about probe is having callback to notify when the
> device is ready-to-use after driver probe powers it up. I will change the
> framework accordingly to have this done.
Is this actually needed? If the driver is responsible for powering up the
device, maybe it's enough to have a simple exported function from the
framework that blocks until the device has been probed, using a
'completion' or a similar wait_event() based primitive for waiting for
the device:
1. The bus driver creates the struct slim_device in one of the three ways
mentioned and does init_completion().
2. The probe function of the driver ensures that the regulators/clocks/...
are set up correctly and then calls wait_for_completion()
3. When the device shows up on the bus, the slimbus layer calls complete().
Steps 2 and 3 can happen in any order.
Arnd
--
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