On 14-01-20, 10:01, Pierre-Louis Bossart wrote: > > > 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 - I find it amusing that a person whom i admired for strict use of terms can get this differently! A rename away from probe will certainly be very helpful as you would also agree that terms 'probe' and 'remove' have a very special meaning in kernel, so let us avoid these -- ~Vinod _______________________________________________ Alsa-devel mailing list Alsa-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://mailman.alsa-project.org/mailman/listinfo/alsa-devel
