[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <ZhOYpHXz6t0fkzZ2@hovoldconsulting.com>
Date: Mon, 8 Apr 2024 09:11:32 +0200
From: Johan Hovold <johan@...nel.org>
To: Dmitry Baryshkov <dmitry.baryshkov@...aro.org>
Cc: Bryan O'Donoghue <bryan.odonoghue@...aro.org>,
Heikki Krogerus <heikki.krogerus@...ux.intel.com>,
Bjorn Andersson <andersson@...nel.org>,
Konrad Dybcio <konrad.dybcio@...aro.org>,
Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
linux-arm-msm@...r.kernel.org, linux-usb@...r.kernel.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
Caleb Connolly <caleb.connolly@...aro.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] usb: typec: qcom-pmic-typec: split HPD bridge alloc
and registration
On Mon, Apr 08, 2024 at 04:06:40AM +0300, Dmitry Baryshkov wrote:
> If a probe function returns -EPROBE_DEFER after creating another device
> there is a change of ending up in a probe deferral loop, (see commit
> fbc35b45f9f6 ("Add documentation on meaning of -EPROBE_DEFER").
>
> In order to prevent such probe-defer loops caused by qcom-pmic-typec
> driver, use the API added by Johan Hovold and move HPD bridge
> registration to the end of the probe function.
You should be more specific here: which function called after
qcom_pmic_typec_probe() can trigger a probe deferral?
I doubt that applies to tcpm->port_start() and tcpm->pdphy_start() in
which case the bridge should be added before those calls unless there
are other reasons for not doing so, which then also should be mentioned.
I suspect the trouble is with tcpm_register_port(), but please spell
that out and mention in which scenarios that function may return
-EPROBE_DEFER.
Johan
Powered by blists - more mailing lists