[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20200710110740.GB5653@sirena.org.uk>
Date: Fri, 10 Jul 2020 12:07:40 +0100
From: Mark Brown <broonie@...nel.org>
To: Andrzej Hajda <a.hajda@...sung.com>
Cc: Dmitry Torokhov <dmitry.torokhov@...il.com>,
Jernej Skrabec <jernej.skrabec@...l.net>,
Grygorii Strashko <grygorii.strashko@...com>,
Bartlomiej Zolnierkiewicz <b.zolnierkie@...sung.com>,
Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
Jonas Karlman <jonas@...boo.se>,
Russell King - ARM Linux <linux@...linux.org.uk>,
"open list:DRM DRIVERS" <dri-devel@...ts.freedesktop.org>,
lkml <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Neil Armstrong <narmstrong@...libre.com>,
Andy Shevchenko <andy.shevchenko@...il.com>,
Laurent Pinchart <Laurent.pinchart@...asonboard.com>,
"Rafael J. Wysocki" <rafael@...nel.org>,
linux-arm-kernel <linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org>,
Marek Szyprowski <m.szyprowski@...sung.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v6 2/4] driver core: add deferring probe reason to
devices_deferred property
On Fri, Jul 10, 2020 at 09:42:49AM +0200, Andrzej Hajda wrote:
> But the provider does not know if *get is called in probe context or
> not, so it is not able to differentiate it.
> So the whole idea is for me suspicious/wrong. Kind of proof:
> 1. If you insist that provider's EPROBE_ERROR must be always propagated
> to driver core then.
> 2. You must enforce that resources can be gathered only from probe.
> 3. But this is against current practice, even if majority of drivers
> does it from probe, there are many which doesn't.
Those drivers are probably buggy anyway at this point given probe
deferral.
Download attachment "signature.asc" of type "application/pgp-signature" (489 bytes)
Powered by blists - more mailing lists