From: Alan Cox <alan@lxorguk.ukuu.org.uk>
To: David Daney <david.daney@cavium.com>
Cc: Grant Likely <grant.likely@secretlab.ca>,
linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org,
Greg Kroah-Hartman <greg@kroah.com>, Dilan Lee <dilee@nvidia.com>,
Mark Brown <broonie@opensource.wolfsonmicro.com>,
Manjunath GKondaiah <manjunath.gkondaiah@linaro.org>,
Arnd Bergmann <arnd@arndb.de>
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH v3] drivercore: Add driver probe deferral mechanism
Date: Thu, 22 Sep 2011 23:47:37 +0100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20110922234737.05dff9f8@lxorguk.ukuu.org.uk> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <4E7BA661.7070903@cavium.com>
> How would a given driver know that something else is waiting for it? Or
> would we add the explicit kick to each and every driver in the tree?
I think there are very very few drivers that have this property and don't
already implicitly cause a probe by creating a new bus or device.
Those drivers that set something up for another device really should
know what is going on because they are making a guarantee that they are
ready for the other device to call into them or whatever is going on at
some point, either explicitly in the kick or implicitly in returning from
their probe method.
I know which I think is clearer and easier for a 3rd party to see and not
miss completely when updating code.
Alan
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2011-09-22 22:49 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 32+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2011-09-22 18:51 Grant Likely
2011-09-22 18:58 ` Joe Perches
2011-09-22 19:28 ` David Daney
2011-09-22 20:29 ` Alan Cox
2011-09-22 21:19 ` Grant Likely
2011-09-23 17:50 ` Valdis.Kletnieks
2011-09-23 23:18 ` Grant Likely
2011-09-22 21:19 ` David Daney
2011-09-22 22:47 ` Alan Cox [this message]
2011-09-23 5:02 ` Grant Likely
2011-09-23 16:55 ` David Daney
2011-09-26 14:16 ` Mark Brown
2011-09-26 15:12 ` Russell King - ARM Linux
2011-09-26 15:26 ` Mark Brown
2011-09-26 15:48 ` Grant Likely
2011-09-27 13:50 ` Arnd Bergmann
2011-09-27 21:08 ` Grant Likely
2011-09-27 22:13 ` Mark Brown
2011-09-28 13:04 ` Arnd Bergmann
2011-09-28 13:20 ` Mark Brown
2011-09-28 23:14 ` Grant Likely
2011-09-29 11:00 ` Mark Brown
2011-10-03 23:02 ` Kevin Hilman
2011-10-04 15:52 ` Grant Likely
2011-10-04 14:51 ` G, Manjunath Kondaiah
2011-10-04 15:58 ` Grant Likely
2011-10-04 18:35 ` G, Manjunath Kondaiah
2011-10-04 23:35 ` Grant Likely
2011-10-07 3:31 ` G, Manjunath Kondaiah
2011-10-11 20:47 ` Andrew Morton
2011-10-11 21:07 ` David Daney
2011-10-13 4:19 ` Grant Likely
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=20110922234737.05dff9f8@lxorguk.ukuu.org.uk \
--to=alan@lxorguk.ukuu.org.uk \
--cc=arnd@arndb.de \
--cc=broonie@opensource.wolfsonmicro.com \
--cc=david.daney@cavium.com \
--cc=dilee@nvidia.com \
--cc=grant.likely@secretlab.ca \
--cc=greg@kroah.com \
--cc=linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=manjunath.gkondaiah@linaro.org \
/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®