On Tue, Jun 13, 2017 at 12:24:42PM +0200, Ulf Hansson wrote:
> [...]
>
> > +
> > +/**
> > + * of_pwrseq_on - Carry out power sequence on for device node
> > + *
> > + * @np: the device node would like to power on
> > + *
> > + * Carry out a single device power on. If multiple devices
> > + * need to be handled, use of_pwrseq_on_list() instead.
> > + *
> > + * Return a pointer to the power sequence instance on success,
> > + * or an error code otherwise.
> > + */
> > +struct pwrseq *of_pwrseq_on(struct device_node *np)
> > +{
> > + struct pwrseq *pwrseq;
> > + int ret;
> > +
> > + pwrseq = pwrseq_find_available_instance(np);
> > + if (!pwrseq)
> > + return ERR_PTR(-ENOENT);
>
> In case the pwrseq instance hasn't been registered yet, then there is
> no way to deal with -EPROBE_DEFER properly here.
>
> I haven't been following the discussions in-depth during all
> iterations, so perhaps you have already discussed why doing it like
> this.
Yes, it has been discussed. In order to compare with compatible string
at dts, we need to have one registered pwrseq instance for each
pwrseq library, this pre-registered one is allocated using
postcore_initcall, and the new (eg, second) instance is registered
after pwrseq_get has succeeded.
Peter
>
> Anyway, that means all pwrseq instances needs to be registered an
> early boot level, to be safe. To me, that seems like poor design
> choice.
>
> Otherwise I think this looks okay to me.
>
--
Best Regards,
Peter Chen
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe devicetree" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
