[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <87d3edllum.fsf@ti.com>
Date: Mon, 03 Oct 2011 16:02:57 -0700
From: Kevin Hilman <khilman@...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>,
Mark Brown <broonie@...nsource.wolfsonmicro.com>,
Manjunath GKondaiah <manjunath.gkondaiah@...aro.org>,
Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH v3] drivercore: Add driver probe deferral mechanism
Grant Likely <grant.likely@...retlab.ca> writes:
> 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.
This is great work, thanks!
For the TODO list:
While the proposed patch should solve probe order dependencies, I don't
think it will solve the suspend/resume ordering dependencies, which are
typically the same.
Currenly suspend/resume order is based on the order devices are *added*
(device_add() -> device_pm_add() -> device added to dpm_list), so
unfortunately, deferring probe isn't going to affect suspend/resume
ordering.
Extending this to also address suspend/resume ordering by also changing
when the device is added to the dpm_list (or possibly creating another
list) should probably be explored as well.
Kevin
--
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