Re: [PATCH v3 01/11] stm class: Introduce an abstraction for System Trace Module devices

[Chunyan Zhang]

On Wed, Jul 29, 2015 at 9:46 PM, Alexander Shishkin
<alexander.shishkin@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> Mark Brown <broonie@xxxxxxxxxx> writes:
>
>> On Wed, Jul 29, 2015 at 04:25:10PM +0300, Alexander Shishkin wrote:
>>
>>> There has to be a way to defer stm_probe(), although a quick look at
>>> amba code suggests it's not implemented.
>>
>> What makes you say this?  Probe deferral is implemented in the driver
>> core rather than individual buses, the buses don't need to know anything
>> about it.
>
> I stand corrected, it indeed is.
>
> So returning EPROBE_DEFER from stm_probe() should Just Work (provided
> stm_probe() handles its error paths correctly).

If let stm_probe() implement probe deferral, it has to have a global
variable for the later calling of "stm_register_device", because the
first parameter of "stm_register_device" is " struct device * " which
comes from amba_probe(), after finished amba_probe(), we may not get
this structure by other means.

This was a similar policy that we both thought was not good :)

>
> Regards,
> --
> Alex
--
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/