* Russell King - ARM Linux <linux@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> [140418 16:04]: > On Fri, Apr 18, 2014 at 02:58:48PM -0700, Tony Lindgren wrote: > > Oh come on, let's stop pretending it's not broken. And it's way worse with > > device tree as there's nothing making sure the resources for a driver > > are set up before the driver probes. And we've been unable to fix just > > this issue alone for about six months now. It's also broken beyond that. > > It's called of_platform_bus yet it won't even pass the platform_data > > as auxdata to the devices on a sub-bus instantatiated like I2C. > > Isn't there a much simpler solution to the platform device IRQ problem? > > Rather than trying to fix it at the point where the resources are > created, why not just *not* have DT create the IRQ resources in the > first place, and instead have platform_get_irq() (which is the function > which should be used to get an IRQ) be the actor to do whatever is > necessary to return the IRQ(s) ? Yeah why not. I don't see why we would need to do all this of_* special trickery for much anything beyond parsing the binding. > Yes, I know we have some drivers which use platform_get_resources() with > IORESOURCE_IRQ, but they should really use the right accessor. And those > who just dereference the resource array directly... get what's coming > (though of course they have to be fixed.) $ git grep IORESOURCE_IRQ drivers/ | grep platform_get_resource | wc -l 179 But might be scriptable to some extent.. > It has the benefit that you're in a path where you /can/ return > -EPROBE_DEFER too and not have to mess around with notifiers or other > silly stuff like that. And then maybe we can make of_platform_probe() or some bus function do the most of the -EPROBE_DEFER ping pong before the driver even probes? Regards, Tony -- 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
