From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.2 required=3.0 tests=DKIMWL_WL_HIGH,DKIM_SIGNED, DKIM_VALID,HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS,MAILING_LIST_MULTI,SPF_HELO_NONE, SPF_PASS,USER_AGENT_MUTT autolearn=unavailable autolearn_force=no version=3.4.0 Received: from mail.kernel.org (mail.kernel.org [198.145.29.99]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 55985C31E4B for ; Fri, 14 Jun 2019 14:36:42 +0000 (UTC) Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [209.132.180.67]) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 29A992064A for ; Fri, 14 Jun 2019 14:36:42 +0000 (UTC) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=kernel.org; s=default; t=1560523002; bh=LMq/Sb352anykVPMDvbfaZbQVk5PdaiQxrm+VWdoXPA=; h=Date:From:To:Cc:Subject:References:In-Reply-To:List-ID:From; b=wXbgFpCl7PnstSF1WV3HOgDi9m6I9umCT3zpUI2+8X2R08BfC9RdyzG+ktYV4nhhh 2tJG+gNEqNEDdsFAMR2ZGqA/+4BUhj7fc13OmzvpJCD3TmPdfgCbM3l1+Urt+DGTeY RWxKJBdcxg8GNlMujaXcjFtOYvxBYxbEyEwA4BMQ= Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1728566AbfFNOgk (ORCPT ); Fri, 14 Jun 2019 10:36:40 -0400 Received: from mail.kernel.org ([198.145.29.99]:35022 "EHLO mail.kernel.org" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1728201AbfFNOgk (ORCPT ); Fri, 14 Jun 2019 10:36:40 -0400 Received: from localhost (83-86-89-107.cable.dynamic.v4.ziggo.nl [83.86.89.107]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 5B3C42064A; Fri, 14 Jun 2019 14:36:38 +0000 (UTC) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=kernel.org; s=default; t=1560522998; bh=LMq/Sb352anykVPMDvbfaZbQVk5PdaiQxrm+VWdoXPA=; h=Date:From:To:Cc:Subject:References:In-Reply-To:From; b=VXXdGL8qWGjsbWS38tMiiBeKXuvQtjJMM8YxL6EZvTVr7+IshxL8aWkak4YPBdy7I xlaNFx0B10KcjATD+ixICuTu95BuX7s0tiN4HUfFvGxKqOkjY91wsoRYYTne3DSpXa of+fGHu5khkS/PMYStOw53xAKyVZ/wybwY3YdyJE= Date: Fri, 14 Jun 2019 16:36:36 +0200 From: Greg Kroah-Hartman To: "Rafael J. Wysocki" Cc: Thierry Reding , Kevin Hilman , Ulf Hansson , Joerg Roedel , Linus Walleij , Rob Herring , Linux PM , linux-gpio@vger.kernel.org, "open list:AMD IOMMU (AMD-VI)" , Linux Kernel Mailing List Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] driver: core: Allow subsystems to continue deferring probe Message-ID: <20190614143636.GB11550@kroah.com> References: <20190613170011.9647-1-thierry.reding@gmail.com> <20190614091058.GA25912@kroah.com> <20190614093856.GC15526@ulmo> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: User-Agent: Mutt/1.12.0 (2019-05-25) Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Fri, Jun 14, 2019 at 12:10:10PM +0200, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote: > On Fri, Jun 14, 2019 at 11:39 AM Thierry Reding > wrote: > > > > On Fri, Jun 14, 2019 at 11:10:58AM +0200, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote: > > > On Thu, Jun 13, 2019 at 07:00:11PM +0200, Thierry Reding wrote: > > > > From: Thierry Reding > > > > > > [cut] > > > > > To avoid further back and forth, what exactly is it that you would have > > me do? That is, what do you consider to be the correct way to do this? > > > > Would you prefer me to add another function with a different name that > > reimplements the functionality only with the exception? Something along > > the lines of: > > > > int driver_deferred_probe_check_state_continue(struct device *dev) > > { > > int ret; > > > > ret = driver_deferred_probe_check_state(dev); > > if (ret == -ENODEV) > > return -EPROBE_DEFER; > > > > return ret; > > } > > > > ? I'd need to split that up some more to avoid the warning that the > > inner function prints before returning -ENODEV, but that's a minor > > detail. Would that API be more to your liking? > > Well, why don't you do > > static int deferred_probe_check_state_internal(struct device *dev) > { > if (!initcalls_done) > return -EPROBE_DEFER; > > if (!deferred_probe_timeout) { > dev_WARN(dev, "deferred probe timeout, ignoring dependency"); > return -ETIMEDOUT; > } > > return 0; > } > > int driver_deferred_probe_check_state(struct device *dev) > { > int ret = deferred_probe_check_state_internal(dev); > > if (ret) > return ret; > > dev_warn(dev, "ignoring dependency for device, assuming no driver"); > return -ENODEV; > } > > int driver_deferred_probe_check_state_continue(struct device *dev) > { > int ret = deferred_probe_check_state_internal(dev); > > if (ret) > return ret; > > return -EPROBE_DEFER; > } Yes, that's much more sane. Self-decribing apis are the key here, I did not want a boolean flag, or any other flag, as part of the public api as they do not describe what the call does at all. thanks, greg k-h