Re: [PATCH] drivercore: Add driver probe deferral mechanism

[Grant Likely]

On Mon, Mar 5, 2012 at 3:15 PM, Greg Kroah-Hartman
<gregkh@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> On Mon, Mar 05, 2012 at 03:09:27PM -0700, Grant Likely wrote:
>> On Mon, Mar 5, 2012 at 2:47 PM, Greg Kroah-Hartman
>> <gregkh@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>> > On Mon, Mar 05, 2012 at 08:47:41AM -0700, Grant Likely wrote:
>> >> --- a/include/linux/device.h
>> >> +++ b/include/linux/device.h
>> >> @@ -587,6 +587,10 @@ struct device_dma_parameters {
>> >>   * @mutex:   Mutex to synchronize calls to its driver.
>> >>   * @bus:     Type of bus device is on.
>> >>   * @driver:  Which driver has allocated this
>> >> + * @deferred_probe: entry in deferred_probe_list which is used to retry the
>> >> + *           binding of drivers which were unable to get all the resources
>> >> + *           needed by the device; typically because it depends on another
>> >> + *           driver getting probed first.
>> >>   * @platform_data: Platform data specific to the device.
>> >>   *           Example: For devices on custom boards, as typical of embedded
>> >>   *           and SOC based hardware, Linux often uses platform_data to point
>> >> @@ -646,6 +650,7 @@ struct device {
>> >>       struct bus_type *bus;           /* type of bus device is on */
>> >>       struct device_driver *driver;   /* which driver has allocated this
>> >>                                          device */
>> >> +     struct list_head        deferred_probe;
>> >>       void            *platform_data; /* Platform specific data, device
>> >>                                          core doesn't touch it */
>> >>       struct dev_pm_info      power;
>> >
>> > This can go into the "struct device_private" structure instead, right?
>> > That would be better to ensure that no non-driver-core code ever touches
>> > this thing.
>>
>> I don't see any reason why not.  I'll make the change and repost.
>
> If you are going to repost, care to fix up your multi-line comment
> blocks to follow the "standard" way of doing it?
>
> That saves me doing the follow-on patch to do it myself :)

Yeah, I can do that.

Actually, if you're okay with this version other than the private data
change, could you pick up this version (it's actually received
testing) and I'll provide follow up patches to fix up the issues
pointed out by you and Arnd.

Thanks,
g.
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/