[<prev] [next>] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20191212182411.GE415177@yoga>
Date: Thu, 12 Dec 2019 10:24:11 -0800
From: Bjorn Andersson <bjorn.andersson@...aro.org>
To: cang@...eaurora.org
Cc: Avri Altman <Avri.Altman@....com>, asutoshd@...eaurora.org,
nguyenb@...eaurora.org, rnayak@...eaurora.org,
linux-scsi@...r.kernel.org, kernel-team@...roid.com,
saravanak@...gle.com, salyzyn@...gle.com,
Alim Akhtar <alim.akhtar@...sung.com>,
Pedro Sousa <pedrom.sousa@...opsys.com>,
"James E.J. Bottomley" <jejb@...ux.ibm.com>,
"Martin K. Petersen" <martin.petersen@...cle.com>,
Evan Green <evgreen@...omium.org>,
Kishon Vijay Abraham I <kishon@...com>,
Stephen Boyd <swboyd@...omium.org>,
Stanley Chu <stanley.chu@...iatek.com>,
Vignesh Raghavendra <vigneshr@...com>,
Bean Huo <beanhuo@...ron.com>,
Bart Van Assche <bvanassche@....org>,
Venkat Gopalakrishnan <venkatg@...eaurora.org>,
Tomas Winkler <tomas.winkler@...el.com>,
Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>,
open list <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 2/3] scsi: ufs: Modulize ufs-bsg
On Thu 12 Dec 08:53 PST 2019, cang@...eaurora.org wrote:
> On 2019-12-12 15:00, Avri Altman wrote:
> > > On Wed 11 Dec 22:01 PST 2019, cang@...eaurora.org wrote:
> > > > On 2019-12-12 12:53, Bjorn Andersson wrote:
> > > > > On Wed 11 Dec 00:49 PST 2019, Can Guo wrote:
[..]
> > > > And in real cases, as the UFS is the boot device, UFS driver will always
> > > > be probed during bootup.
> > > >
> > >
> > > The UFS driver will load and probe because it's mentioned in the
> > > devicetree, but if either the ufs drivers or any of its dependencies
> > > (phy, resets, clocks, etc) are built as modules it might very well
> > > finish probing after lateinitcall.
> > >
> > > So in the even that the bsg is =y and any of these drivers are =m,
> > > or if
> > > you're having bad luck with your timing, the list will be empty.
> > >
> > > As described below, if bsg=m, then there's nothing that will load the
> > > module and the bsg will not probe...
> > Right.
> > bsg=y and ufshcd=m is a bad idea, and should be avoided.
> >
>
> Yeah, I will get it addressed in the next patchset.
>
If you build this around platform_device_register_data() from ufshcd I
don't see a reason to add additional restrictions on this combination
(even though it might not make much sense for people to use this
combination).
Regards,
Bjorn
Powered by blists - more mailing lists