[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CALAqxLUMjF4vx0EAd0bQOixyP5SLZ0pESpC0TXoHbSTyTqQLYg@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 25 Feb 2020 18:13:48 -0800
From: John Stultz <john.stultz@...aro.org>
To: Saravana Kannan <saravanak@...gle.com>
Cc: lkml <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, Rob Herring <robh@...nel.org>,
"Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@...ysocki.net>,
Kevin Hilman <khilman@...nel.org>,
Ulf Hansson <ulf.hansson@...aro.org>,
Pavel Machek <pavel@....cz>, Len Brown <len.brown@...el.com>,
Todd Kjos <tkjos@...gle.com>,
Bjorn Andersson <bjorn.andersson@...aro.org>,
Liam Girdwood <lgirdwood@...il.com>,
Mark Brown <broonie@...nel.org>,
Thierry Reding <treding@...dia.com>,
Linus Walleij <linus.walleij@...aro.org>,
Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
Linux PM <linux-pm@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v5 3/6] pinctrl: Remove use of driver_deferred_probe_check_state_continue()
On Tue, Feb 25, 2020 at 6:11 PM Saravana Kannan <saravanak@...gle.com> wrote:
> On Mon, Feb 24, 2020 at 9:08 PM John Stultz <john.stultz@...aro.org> wrote:
> >
> > With the earlier sanity fixes to
> > driver_deferred_probe_check_state() it should be usable for the
> > pinctrl logic here.
> >
> > So tweak the logic to use driver_deferred_probe_check_state()
> > instead of driver_deferred_probe_check_state_continue()
> >
> > Cc: Rob Herring <robh@...nel.org>
> > Cc: "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@...ysocki.net>
> > Cc: Kevin Hilman <khilman@...nel.org>
> > Cc: Ulf Hansson <ulf.hansson@...aro.org>
> > Cc: Pavel Machek <pavel@....cz>
> > Cc: Len Brown <len.brown@...el.com>
> > Cc: Todd Kjos <tkjos@...gle.com>
> > Cc: Saravana Kannan <saravanak@...gle.com>
> > Cc: Bjorn Andersson <bjorn.andersson@...aro.org>
> > Cc: Liam Girdwood <lgirdwood@...il.com>
> > Cc: Mark Brown <broonie@...nel.org>
> > Cc: Thierry Reding <treding@...dia.com>
> > Cc: Linus Walleij <linus.walleij@...aro.org>
> > Cc: Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>
> > Cc: linux-pm@...r.kernel.org
> > Acked-by: Linus Walleij <linus.walleij@...aro.org>
> > Signed-off-by: John Stultz <john.stultz@...aro.org>
> > ---
> > drivers/pinctrl/devicetree.c | 9 +++++----
> > 1 file changed, 5 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-)
> >
> > diff --git a/drivers/pinctrl/devicetree.c b/drivers/pinctrl/devicetree.c
> > index 9357f7c46cf3..1ed20ac2243f 100644
> > --- a/drivers/pinctrl/devicetree.c
> > +++ b/drivers/pinctrl/devicetree.c
> > @@ -127,11 +127,12 @@ static int dt_to_map_one_config(struct pinctrl *p,
> > np_pctldev = of_get_next_parent(np_pctldev);
> > if (!np_pctldev || of_node_is_root(np_pctldev)) {
> > of_node_put(np_pctldev);
> > + ret = driver_deferred_probe_check_state(p->dev);
> > /* keep deferring if modules are enabled unless we've timed out */
> > - if (IS_ENABLED(CONFIG_MODULES) && !allow_default)
> > - return driver_deferred_probe_check_state_continue(p->dev);
> > -
> > - return driver_deferred_probe_check_state(p->dev);
> > + if (IS_ENABLED(CONFIG_MODULES) && !allow_default &&
>
> Is this IS_ENABLED(CONFIG_MODULES) still necessary? At the end of this
> series, doesn't driver_deferred_probe_check_state() already return
> -EPROBE_DEFER if modules are enabled and timeout hasn't happened?
>
Yea, good point. With the reworked logic in v5, the
IS_ENABLED(CONFIG_MODULES) check could go.
thanks
-john
Powered by blists - more mailing lists