[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20141011165650.GA1263@katana>
Date: Sat, 11 Oct 2014 18:56:51 +0200
From: Wolfram Sang <wsa@...-dreams.de>
To: Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>
Cc: linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org,
Russell King - ARM Linux <linux@....linux.org.uk>,
Greg KH <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
kernel-janitors@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
cocci@...teme.lip6.fr
Subject: Re: [RFC] drop owner assignment from platform_drivers
> > You got me wondering, though, that it could not be correct to call
> > platform_driver_register() from the platform core instead of module
> > init. I will check tomorrow. Still, this would be a bug independent of
> > my series. Although I'd need to respin it if platform_driver_probe()
> > needed a fix.
>
> Right, this seems to be a preexisting bug. platform_create_bundle
> and platform_driver_probe will both overwrite the .owner field with
> NULL since they live in builtin code. They need to be replaced with
> __platform_driver_probe and __platform_driver_register that both
> take an extra owner argument passed down from the caller in the driver
> module.
Yeah, that would be one solution. However, my personal favourite would
meanwhile be to revert the commit that Russell mentioned. I think it is
cleaner to have the owner explicitly set in the module rather than
hidden away by a function call. However, grepping through include/linux,
there are a few subsystems hiding it this way. So, it is a pattern
somewhow. Oh well...
Download attachment "signature.asc" of type "application/pgp-signature" (820 bytes)
Powered by blists - more mailing lists