From: Herve Codina <herve.codina@bootlin.com>
To: Andrew Lunn <andrew@lunn.ch>, Rob Herring <robh@kernel.org>,
Saravana Kannan <saravanak@kernel.org>,
Geert Uytterhoeven <geert+renesas@glider.be>,
Kalle Niemi <kaleposti@gmail.com>,
Matti Vaittinen <mazziesaccount@gmail.com>,
Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org>,
"Rafael J. Wysocki" <rafael@kernel.org>,
Danilo Krummrich <dakr@kernel.org>,
Johan Hovold <johan@kernel.org>
Cc: driver-core@lists.linux.dev, devicetree@vger.kernel.org,
linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
Allan Nielsen <allan.nielsen@microchip.com>,
Horatiu Vultur <horatiu.vultur@microchip.com>,
Daniel Machon <daniel.machon@microchip.com>,
Steen Hegelund <steen.hegelund@microchip.com>,
Luca Ceresoli <luca.ceresoli@bootlin.com>,
Thomas Petazzoni <thomas.petazzoni@bootlin.com>,
Herve Codina <herve.codina@bootlin.com>
Subject: [PATCH v9 0/4] lan966x pci device: Add support for SFPs, simple-bus part
Date: Mon, 9 Nov 2026 15:08:38 +0100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20261109140916.90625-1-herve.codina@bootlin.com> (raw)
Hi,
Previously, I sent a big picture series adding support for SFP ports
available on the LAN966x PCI device [0].
In this series patches touch several parts and sub-system in the kernel.
Reviews have be done and it makes sense to split the series and send
parts separately.
This current series is the extraction of patches related to the
simple-bus driver. It has to be seen as a continuation of the big
picture series but related to this specific simple-bus part.
Patch 1 fixes an already existing issue reported by Sashiko.
Patch 2 removes the no more useful remove() function.
Patch 3 depopulates devices populated at probe() when the driver is
unbound.
Patch 4 makes the simple-bus driver compatible with fw_devlink
expectation consisting in creating its child devices at probe.
[0] https://lore.kernel.org/all/20260325143555.451852-1-herve.codina@bootlin.com/
Best regards,
Hervé
Changes:
v8 -> v9
v8: https://lore.kernel.org/all/20260630102717.413501-1-herve.codina@bootlin.com/
Rebase on top of v7.4-rc1
- Patch 1 (new patch in v9)
Fix an issue reported by Sashiko related to possible inconsistencies
between operations done at probe() and the ones done at remove().
- Patch 2 (new patch in v9)
Fully remove the remove() function.
- Patch 3
Changed the way depopulate is performed and use devres feature.
Took into account a pm_runtime possible issue (reported by Sashiko)
related to async pm_request_idle() triggered when all child devices
are removed from the bus.
- Patch 4
Use devres feature.
v7 -> v8
v7: https://lore.kernel.org/all/20260511155902.34534-1-herve.codina@bootlin.com/
Rebase on top of v7.2-rc1
No nother changes
v6 -> v7
Rebase on top of v7.1-rc1
- Patch 1
No changes
- Patch 2
Fix conflict due to device_has_driver_override() introduction.
Older iterations:
Patches 4 and 5 in the big picture series
https://lore.kernel.org/all/20260325143555.451852-1-herve.codina@bootlin.com/
Herve Codina (4):
bus: simple-pm-bus: Avoid inconsistencies between probe() and remove()
bus: simple-pm-bus: Remove the remove() function
bus: simple-pm-bus: Remove child devices when the bus is unbound
bus: simple-pm-bus: Populate child nodes at probe
drivers/bus/simple-pm-bus.c | 90 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++----------
1 file changed, 67 insertions(+), 23 deletions(-)
--
2.56.0
next reply other threads:[~2026-11-09 14:09 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 5+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2026-11-09 14:08 Herve Codina [this message]
2026-11-09 14:08 ` [PATCH v9 1/4] bus: simple-pm-bus: Avoid inconsistencies between probe() and remove() Herve Codina
2026-11-09 14:08 ` [PATCH v9 2/4] bus: simple-pm-bus: Remove the remove() function Herve Codina
2026-11-09 14:08 ` [PATCH v9 3/4] bus: simple-pm-bus: Remove child devices when the bus is unbound Herve Codina
2026-11-09 14:08 ` [PATCH v9 4/4] bus: simple-pm-bus: Populate child nodes at probe Herve Codina
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=20261109140916.90625-1-herve.codina@bootlin.com \
--to=herve.codina@bootlin.com \
--cc=allan.nielsen@microchip.com \
--cc=andrew@lunn.ch \
--cc=dakr@kernel.org \
--cc=daniel.machon@microchip.com \
--cc=devicetree@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=driver-core@lists.linux.dev \
--cc=geert+renesas@glider.be \
--cc=gregkh@linuxfoundation.org \
--cc=horatiu.vultur@microchip.com \
--cc=johan@kernel.org \
--cc=kaleposti@gmail.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=luca.ceresoli@bootlin.com \
--cc=mazziesaccount@gmail.com \
--cc=rafael@kernel.org \
--cc=robh@kernel.org \
--cc=saravanak@kernel.org \
--cc=steen.hegelund@microchip.com \
--cc=thomas.petazzoni@bootlin.com \
/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®