I am quoting the code in patch, which i pointed in my first reply!
On 17-12-19, 15:03, Pierre-Louis Bossart wrote:
diff --git a/drivers/soundwire/intel_init.c b/drivers/soundwire/intel_init.c
index 4b769409f6f8..42f7ae034bea 100644
--- a/drivers/soundwire/intel_init.c
This is intel specific file...
+++ b/drivers/soundwire/intel_init.c
snip ...
+static struct sdw_intel_ctx
+*sdw_intel_probe_controller(struct sdw_intel_res *res)
this is intel driver, intel function!
-
- link->pdev = pdev;
- link++;
+ /* let the SoundWire master driver to its probe */
+ md->driver->probe(md, link);
^^^^^^
which does this... calls a probe()!
And my first reply was:
+ /* let the SoundWire master driver to its probe */
+ md->driver->probe(md, link);
So you are invoking driver probe here.. That is typically role of driver
core to do that.. If we need that, make driver core do that for you!
I rest my case!
I think you are too focused on the probe case and not realizing the
extensions suggested by this patchset. A "driver" is not limited to
'probe' and 'remove' cases.
As mentioned since mid-September, there is a need for an initialization
of software/kernel structures (which I called probe but should have been
called init really), and a second step where the hardware is actually
configured - after all power rail dependencies are under control.
Can you please look at the .startup callback and let me know how a
'driver core' would handle this?
To the best of my knowledge, there is no .startup in any device model
functionality, so the only thing I could do to avoid a direct call is
add a wrapper to avoid a direct call, e.g.
static inline sdw_master_device_startup(struct sdw_master_device *md)
{
if (md && md->driver && md->driver->startup)
md->driver->startup(md);
}
_______________________________________________
Alsa-devel mailing list
Alsa-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
https://mailman.alsa-project.org/mailman/listinfo/alsa-devel
