[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20150911120408.GO12027@sirena.org.uk>
Date: Fri, 11 Sep 2015 13:04:08 +0100
From: Mark Brown <broonie@...nel.org>
To: Tomeu Vizoso <tomeu.vizoso@...labora.com>
Cc: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Rob Herring <robh+dt@...nel.org>,
Stephen Warren <swarren@...dotorg.org>,
Javier Martinez Canillas <javier@....samsung.com>,
Thierry Reding <thierry.reding@...il.com>,
"Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@...ysocki.net>,
linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org,
Dmitry Torokhov <dmitry.torokhov@...il.com>,
devicetree@...r.kernel.org,
Linus Walleij <linus.walleij@...aro.org>,
linux-acpi@...r.kernel.org, Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>,
Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 01/22] driver core: Add pre_probe callback to bus_type
On Mon, Sep 07, 2015 at 02:23:26PM +0200, Tomeu Vizoso wrote:
> + if (dev->bus && dev->bus->pre_probe) {
> + ret = dev->bus->pre_probe(dev);
> + if (ret) {
> + if (ret == -EPROBE_DEFER)
> + driver_deferred_probe_add(dev);
> + ret = 0;
> + goto out_unlock;
> + }
> + }
So if we get an error other than -EPROBE_DEFER we silently ignore it?
That seems surprising and at least worth a comment.
> + if (dev->bus && dev->bus->pre_probe) {
> + ret = dev->bus->pre_probe(dev);
> + if (ret) {
> + if (ret == -EPROBE_DEFER)
> + driver_deferred_probe_add(dev);
> + goto out;
> + }
> + }
That's more what I'd expect.
Download attachment "signature.asc" of type "application/pgp-signature" (474 bytes)
Powered by blists - more mailing lists