From: Grant Likely <grant.likely@secretlab.ca>
To: Mark Brown <broonie@opensource.wolfsonmicro.com>
Cc: Kay Sievers <kay.sievers@vrfy.org>,
Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@suse.de>,
linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@sisk.pl>,
"David S. Miller" <davem@davemloft.net>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] drivercore: Add driver probe deferral mechanism
Date: Mon, 4 Jul 2011 17:25:09 -0600 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20110704232509.GA12824@ponder.secretlab.ca> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20110704204717.GE32624@opensource.wolfsonmicro.com>
On Mon, Jul 04, 2011 at 01:47:18PM -0700, Mark Brown wrote:
> On Mon, Jul 04, 2011 at 11:11:59AM -0600, Grant Likely wrote:
>
> > Mark, I'm particularly interested in your thoughts on this approach.
> > It is decidedly "low-tech" in its approach to handling device
> > dependencies, but it has the advantage of being simple and should
> > handle a wide range of use-cases reliably. Would this work for ALSA
> > SoC probing?
>
> It's essentially what we're doing currently for the part of the system
> where we decide that everything is registered and we should run the
> actual probe functions so it'll help with that. Having a clock API we
> can actually use off-SoC will help with a lot of the remaining stuff.
Is that the bit that snd_soc_instantiate_cards() is doing? If I made
snd_soc_register_card() attempt to instantiate immediately and return
-EAGAIN if resources were not available, it looks like I should be
able to remove the card_list entirely. Would that be the right way to
go about it?
> I *think* we'll still going to need to have the infrastructure to deal
> with running all the probes together, at least for a while, as the
> current code really assumes that it's got some of the card wide stuff
> around when all the devices get instantiated but I think if we were
> starting from fresh this would be fairly good.
I'm not sure what you're getting at here. Are you talking about the
infrastructure to keep track of codecs, DAIs and the like? Yes, that
infrastructure is still needed because the drivers need an api for
each of the kinds of resources it needs.
> The only thing I can
> think might be an issue is n way dependencies, but those mostly shake
> out as being a dependency of the overall card on subdevices. I'd need
> to separate out the implementation issues from the assumptions to be
> 100% clear if that was the case, though.
Do you have an example? I don't see any problems with complex
dependencies providing that none of them are circular. If, say,
device A depends on B and C, and B also depends on C, then it may take
a couple of cycles before everything gets probed, but it all still
works correctly.
g.
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2011-07-04 23:25 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 38+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2011-07-04 17:11 Grant Likely
2011-07-04 17:41 ` Greg KH
2011-07-04 17:56 ` Mark Brown
2011-07-04 18:01 ` Grant Likely
2011-07-05 14:21 ` Greg KH
2011-07-05 15:21 ` Arnd Bergmann
2011-07-05 15:50 ` Greg KH
2011-07-05 16:05 ` Arnd Bergmann
2011-07-05 16:27 ` Grant Likely
2011-07-05 16:11 ` Kay Sievers
2011-07-05 16:28 ` Grant Likely
2011-07-05 16:36 ` Greg KH
2011-07-05 17:17 ` Grant Likely
2011-07-05 17:29 ` Greg KH
2011-07-05 17:35 ` Grant Likely
2011-07-10 14:24 ` Kay Sievers
2011-07-05 16:33 ` Grant Likely
2011-07-05 16:05 ` Grant Likely
2011-07-04 19:56 ` Randy Dunlap
2011-07-04 20:47 ` Mark Brown
2011-07-04 23:25 ` Grant Likely [this message]
2011-07-05 6:11 ` Mark Brown
2012-03-05 15:47 Grant Likely
2012-03-05 17:38 ` Alan Cox
2012-03-05 17:40 ` David Daney
2012-03-05 17:50 ` Mark Brown
2012-03-05 19:15 ` Arnd Bergmann
2012-03-05 21:10 ` Grant Likely
2012-03-05 21:24 ` Greg Kroah-Hartman
2012-03-05 21:28 ` Mark Brown
2012-03-06 9:10 ` Arnd Bergmann
2012-03-05 21:47 ` Greg Kroah-Hartman
2012-03-05 22:09 ` Grant Likely
2012-03-05 22:15 ` Greg Kroah-Hartman
2012-03-06 0:08 ` Grant Likely
2012-03-06 5:28 ` Greg Kroah-Hartman
2012-03-06 7:52 ` Grant Likely
2012-03-08 20:22 ` Greg KH
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=20110704232509.GA12824@ponder.secretlab.ca \
--to=grant.likely@secretlab.ca \
--cc=broonie@opensource.wolfsonmicro.com \
--cc=davem@davemloft.net \
--cc=gregkh@suse.de \
--cc=kay.sievers@vrfy.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=rjw@sisk.pl \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox
all inboxes | Powered by JetHome®