[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20110926141643.GK2946@opensource.wolfsonmicro.com>
Date: Mon, 26 Sep 2011 15:16:43 +0100
From: Mark Brown <broonie@...nsource.wolfsonmicro.com>
To: Grant Likely <grant.likely@...retlab.ca>
Cc: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org,
Greg Kroah-Hartman <greg@...ah.com>,
Dilan Lee <dilee@...dia.com>,
Manjunath GKondaiah <manjunath.gkondaiah@...aro.org>,
Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH v3] drivercore: Add driver probe deferral mechanism
On Thu, Sep 22, 2011 at 12:51:23PM -0600, Grant Likely wrote:
> Allow drivers to report at probe time that they cannot get all the resources
> required by the device, and should be retried at a later time.
> This should completely solve the problem of getting devices
> initialized in the right order. Right now this is mostly handled by
> mucking about with initcall ordering which is a complete hack, and
> doesn't even remotely handle the case where device drivers are in
> modules. This approach completely sidesteps the issues by allowing
> driver registration to occur in any order, and any driver can request
> to be retried after a few more other drivers get probed.
So, one issue I did think of the other day while putting some support in
the regulator core for using this: what happens with devices which can
optionally use a resource but don't rely on it? One example here is
that a lot of the MMC drivers have an optional regulator to control some
of the supplies for the cards. If the reglator isn't there it won't be
used but it's not a blocker for anything. Devices doing this would need
some way to figure out if they should -EBUSY or fail otherwise.
--
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