[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20151021203519.GO32532@n2100.arm.linux.org.uk>
Date: Wed, 21 Oct 2015 21:35:19 +0100
From: Russell King - ARM Linux <linux@....linux.org.uk>
To: Frank Rowand <frowand.list@...il.com>
Cc: Geert Uytterhoeven <geert@...ux-m68k.org>,
Tomeu Vizoso <tomeu.vizoso@...labora.com>,
Mark Brown <broonie@...nel.org>,
Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
Rob Herring <robh+dt@...nel.org>,
Michael Turquette <mturquette@...libre.com>,
Stephen Boyd <sboyd@...eaurora.org>,
Vinod Koul <vinod.koul@...el.com>,
Dan Williams <dan.j.williams@...el.com>,
Linus Walleij <linus.walleij@...aro.org>,
Alexandre Courbot <gnurou@...il.com>,
Thierry Reding <thierry.reding@...il.com>,
David Airlie <airlied@...ux.ie>,
Terje Bergström <tbergstrom@...dia.com>,
Stephen Warren <swarren@...dotorg.org>,
Wolfram Sang <wsa@...-dreams.de>,
Grant Likely <grant.likely@...aro.org>,
Kishon Vijay Abraham I <kishon@...com>,
Sebastian Reichel <sre@...nel.org>,
Dmitry Eremin-Solenikov <dbaryshkov@...il.com>,
David Woodhouse <dwmw2@...radead.org>,
Liam Girdwood <lgirdwood@...il.com>,
Felipe Balbi <balbi@...com>, Jingoo Han <jingoohan1@...il.com>,
Lee Jones <lee.jones@...aro.org>,
Jean-Christophe Plagniol-Villard <plagnioj@...osoft.com>,
Tomi Valkeinen <tomi.valkeinen@...com>,
"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
linux-clk <linux-clk@...r.kernel.org>, dmaengine@...r.kernel.org,
"linux-gpio@...r.kernel.org" <linux-gpio@...r.kernel.org>,
"dri-devel@...ts.freedesktop.org" <dri-devel@...ts.freedesktop.org>,
"linux-tegra@...r.kernel.org" <linux-tegra@...r.kernel.org>,
Linux I2C <linux-i2c@...r.kernel.org>,
"devicetree@...r.kernel.org" <devicetree@...r.kernel.org>,
"linux-pm@...r.kernel.org" <linux-pm@...r.kernel.org>,
Linux PWM List <linux-pwm@...r.kernel.org>,
"linux-usb@...r.kernel.org" <linux-usb@...r.kernel.org>,
Linux Fbdev development list <linux-fbdev@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: Alternative approach to solve the deferred probe
On Wed, Oct 21, 2015 at 08:36:23AM -0700, Frank Rowand wrote:
> On 10/21/2015 1:18 AM, Russell King - ARM Linux wrote:
> > On Tue, Oct 20, 2015 at 08:58:19PM -0700, Frank Rowand wrote:
> >> On 10/20/2015 8:46 AM, Russell King - ARM Linux wrote:
>
> < snip >
>
> >>> +
> >>> static bool driver_deferred_probe_enable = false;
> >>> +
> >>> /**
> >>> * driver_deferred_probe_trigger() - Kick off re-probing deferred devices
> >>> *
> >>> @@ -188,6 +210,13 @@ static int deferred_probe_initcall(void)
> >>> driver_deferred_probe_trigger();
> >>
> >> Couldn't you put the "driver_deferred_probe_report = true" here? And then
> >> not add another round of probes.
> >
> > The idea is not to report anything for drivers that were deferred
> > during the normal bootup. The above is part of the normal bootup,
> > and the deferred activity should not be warned about.
>
> The above is currently the last point for probe to succeed or defer
> (until possibly, as you mentioned, module loading resolves the defer).
> If a probe defers above, it will defer again below. The set of defers
> should be exactly the same above and below.
Why should it? Isn't this late_initcall() the first opportunity that
deferred devices get to be re-probed from their first set of attempts
via the drivers having their initcalls called?
If what you're saying is true, what's the point of this late_initcall()?
<re-cut again, I've no idea why you keep adding it back>
--
FTTC broadband for 0.8mile line: currently at 9.6Mbps down 400kbps up
according to speedtest.net.
--
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