[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CAD=FV=XV0+G=uFBE_n6WFGVW2szGcKToZgCNTdSrNf3LVk9MOQ@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 1 Dec 2023 16:58:20 -0800
From: Doug Anderson <dianders@...omium.org>
To: Chen-Yu Tsai <wenst@...omium.org>
Cc: Rob Herring <robh+dt@...nel.org>,
Frank Rowand <frowand.list@...il.com>,
Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzysztof.kozlowski+dt@...aro.org>,
Conor Dooley <conor+dt@...nel.org>,
Matthias Brugger <matthias.bgg@...il.com>,
AngeloGioacchino Del Regno
<angelogioacchino.delregno@...labora.com>,
Wolfram Sang <wsa@...nel.org>,
Benson Leung <bleung@...omium.org>,
Tzung-Bi Shih <tzungbi@...nel.org>,
chrome-platform@...ts.linux.dev, devicetree@...r.kernel.org,
linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org,
linux-mediatek@...ts.infradead.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
Johan Hovold <johan@...nel.org>,
Hsin-Yi Wang <hsinyi@...omium.org>,
Dmitry Torokhov <dmitry.torokhov@...il.com>,
andriy.shevchenko@...ux.intel.com, Jiri Kosina <jikos@...nel.org>,
linus.walleij@...aro.org, broonie@...nel.org,
gregkh@...uxfoundation.org, hdegoede@...hat.com,
james.clark@....com, james@...iv.tech, keescook@...omium.org,
rafael@...nel.org, tglx@...utronix.de,
Jeff LaBundy <jeff@...undy.com>, linux-input@...r.kernel.org,
linux-i2c@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH v3 3/5] platform/chrome: Introduce device tree
hardware prober
Hi,
On Tue, Nov 28, 2023 at 12:45 AM Chen-Yu Tsai <wenst@...omium.org> wrote:
>
> @@ -61,6 +61,17 @@ config CHROMEOS_TBMC
> To compile this driver as a module, choose M here: the
> module will be called chromeos_tbmc.
>
> +config CHROMEOS_OF_HW_PROBER
> + bool "ChromeOS Device Tree Hardware Prober"
Any reason that it can't be a module?
> + depends on OF
> + depends on I2C
> + select OF_DYNAMIC
> + default OF
You probably don't want "default OF". This means that everyone will
automatically get this new driver enabled which is unlikely to be
right.
> +static int chromeos_of_hw_prober_probe(struct platform_device *pdev)
> +{
> + for (size_t i = 0; i < ARRAY_SIZE(hw_prober_platforms); i++)
> + if (of_machine_is_compatible(hw_prober_platforms[i].compatible)) {
> + int ret;
> +
> + ret = hw_prober_platforms[i].prober(&pdev->dev,
> + hw_prober_platforms[i].data);
> + if (ret)
Should it only check for -EPROBE_DEFER here? ...and then maybe warn
for other cases and go through the loop? If there's some error
enabling the touchscreen I'd still want the trackpad to probe...
> + return ret;
> + }
> +
> + return 0;
Random thought: once we get here, the driver is useless / just wasting
memory. Any way to have it freed? ;-)
Powered by blists - more mailing lists