On Wed, Apr 28, 2021 at 02:41:53PM +0200, Christoph Hellwig wrote: > On Wed, Apr 28, 2021 at 12:56:21AM -0700, Dan Williams wrote: > > > I still think this going the wrong way. Why can't we enhance the core > > > driver code with a version of device_bind_driver() that does call into > > > ->probe? That probably seems like a better model for those existing > > > direct users of device_bind_driver or device_attach with a pre-set > > > ->drv anyway. > > > > Wouldn't that just be "export device_driver_attach()" so that drivers > > can implement their own custom bind implementation? > > That looks like it might be all that is needed. I thought about doing it like that, it is generally a good idea, however, if I add new API surface to the driver core I really want to get rid of device_bind_driver(), or at least most of its users. I'm pretty sure Greg will ask for it too. So, I need a way to sequence that which doesn't mean I have to shelf the mdev stuff for ages while I try to get acks from lots of places. Leave this alone and fix it after? Export device_driver_attach() and say to try and fix the rest after? I think this will still need the ugly errno capture though.. Jason
