linux-kernel - Re: [RFC PATCH v3] drivercore: Add driver probe deferral mechanism

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <20110929110011.GL3697@opensource.wolfsonmicro.com>
Date:	Thu, 29 Sep 2011 12:00:12 +0100
From:	Mark Brown <broonie@...nsource.wolfsonmicro.com>
To:	Grant Likely <grant.likely@...retlab.ca>
Cc:	Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>,
	Russell King - ARM Linux <linux@....linux.org.uk>,
	Greg Kroah-Hartman <greg@...ah.com>,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	Manjunath GKondaiah <manjunath.gkondaiah@...aro.org>,
	Dilan Lee <dilee@...dia.com>,
	linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH v3] drivercore: Add driver probe deferral mechanism

On Wed, Sep 28, 2011 at 06:14:10PM -0500, Grant Likely wrote:

> For your question, I still think it is the driver that gets to make
> the decision.  If it can proceed without a resource, then it should go
> ahead and succeed on the probe, and then arrange to either be notified
> of new gpio controller (or whatever) registrations, or poll for the
> resource to be set up.

Right, I do tend to agree.  This is something we'll have to bear in mind
when deploying this stuff - drivers that are doing this sort of stuff
are going to get surprised.
--
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/