[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CABGWkvpJ5Hc8pQ-Rzu8z6Y_Cfa2pEC0C2ABT_FGp6r9Vyz-Gmw@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 13 Jul 2022 10:48:57 +0200
From: Dario Binacchi <dario.binacchi@...rulasolutions.com>
To: Marco Felsch <m.felsch@...gutronix.de>
Cc: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
Michael Trimarchi <michael@...rulasolutions.com>,
linux-amarula@...rulasolutions.com,
Sascha Hauer <s.hauer@...gutronix.de>, stable@...r.kernel.org,
Vinod Koul <vkoul@...nel.org>,
NXP Linux Team <linux-imx@....com>,
Pengutronix Kernel Team <kernel@...gutronix.de>,
dmaengine@...r.kernel.org, Shawn Guo <shawnguo@...nel.org>,
Fabio Estevam <festevam@...il.com>,
linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v5 1/2] dmaengine: mxs: use platform_driver_register
Hi Marco,
On Wed, Jul 13, 2022 at 10:40 AM Marco Felsch <m.felsch@...gutronix.de> wrote:
>
> Hi Dario,
>
> On 22-07-12, Dario Binacchi wrote:
> > Driver registration fails on SOC imx8mn as its supplier, the clock
> > control module, is probed later than subsys initcall level. This driver
> > uses platform_driver_probe which is not compatible with deferred probing
> > and won't be probed again later if probe function fails due to clock not
> > being available at that time.
> >
> > This patch replaces the use of platform_driver_probe with
> > platform_driver_register which will allow probing the driver later again
> > when the clock control module will be available.
> >
> > Fixes: a580b8c5429a ("dmaengine: mxs-dma: add dma support for i.MX23/28")
> > Co-developed-by: Michael Trimarchi <michael@...rulasolutions.com>
> > Signed-off-by: Michael Trimarchi <michael@...rulasolutions.com>
> > Signed-off-by: Dario Binacchi <dario.binacchi@...rulasolutions.com>
> > Cc: stable@...r.kernel.org
> >
> > ---
> >
> > Changes in v5:
> > - Update the commit message.
> > - Create a new patch to remove the warning generated by this patch.
>
> Please squash this new patch into this patch since you introduce the
> warning with this patch.
In version 4 I had only one patch, but Vinod told me to separate the
patches like
this. I also think like you, but I did what Vinod asked me to do.
So, can you agree and actually tell me what to do?
Thanks and regards,
Dario
>
> Regards,
> Marco
>
> > Changes in v4:
> > - Restore __init in front of mxs_dma_probe() definition.
> > - Rename the mxs_dma_driver variable to mxs_dma_driver_probe.
> > - Update the commit message.
> > - Use builtin_platform_driver() instead of module_platform_driver().
> >
> > Changes in v3:
> > - Restore __init in front of mxs_dma_init() definition.
> >
> > Changes in v2:
> > - Add the tag "Cc: stable@...r.kernel.org" in the sign-off area.
> >
> > drivers/dma/mxs-dma.c | 8 ++------
> > 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 6 deletions(-)
> >
> > diff --git a/drivers/dma/mxs-dma.c b/drivers/dma/mxs-dma.c
> > index 994fc4d2aca4..18f8154b859b 100644
> > --- a/drivers/dma/mxs-dma.c
> > +++ b/drivers/dma/mxs-dma.c
> > @@ -839,10 +839,6 @@ static struct platform_driver mxs_dma_driver = {
> > .name = "mxs-dma",
> > .of_match_table = mxs_dma_dt_ids,
> > },
> > + .probe = mxs_dma_probe,
> > };
> > -
> > -static int __init mxs_dma_module_init(void)
> > -{
> > - return platform_driver_probe(&mxs_dma_driver, mxs_dma_probe);
> > -}
> > -subsys_initcall(mxs_dma_module_init);
> > +builtin_platform_driver(mxs_dma_driver);
> > --
> > 2.32.0
> >
> >
> >
--
Dario Binacchi
Embedded Linux Developer
dario.binacchi@...rulasolutions.com
__________________________________
Amarula Solutions SRL
Via Le Canevare 30, 31100 Treviso, Veneto, IT
T. +39 042 243 5310
info@...rulasolutions.com
www.amarulasolutions.com
Powered by blists - more mailing lists