[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <201303181058.51641.arnd@arndb.de>
Date: Mon, 18 Mar 2013 10:58:51 +0000
From: Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>
To: Fabio Porcedda <fabio.porcedda@...il.com>
Cc: H Hartley Sweeten <hartleys@...ionengravers.com>,
"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
"linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org"
<linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org>,
"linux-media@...r.kernel.org" <linux-media@...r.kernel.org>,
"linux-ide@...r.kernel.org" <linux-ide@...r.kernel.org>,
"lm-sensors@...sensors.org" <lm-sensors@...sensors.org>,
"linux-input@...r.kernel.org" <linux-input@...r.kernel.org>,
"linux-fbdev@...r.kernel.org" <linux-fbdev@...r.kernel.org>,
"Greg Kroah-Hartman" <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
"Hans-Christian Egtvedt" <hans-christian.egtvedt@...el.com>,
Grant Likely <grant.likely@...retlab.ca>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 10/10] drivers: misc: use module_platform_driver_probe()
On Monday 18 March 2013, Fabio Porcedda wrote:
> Since by using platform_driver_probe() the function
> ep93xx_pwm_probe() is freed after initialization,
> is better to use module_platform_drive_probe().
> IMHO i don't see any good reason to use module_platform_driver() for
> this driver.
As I commented earlier, the platform_driver_probe() and
module_platform_drive_probe() interfaces are rather dangerous in combination
with deferred probing, I would much prefer Harley's patch.
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