This looks good as-is, but a suggestions for incremental improvements
below:
> @@ -1032,10 +1035,10 @@ int device_driver_attach(struct device_driver *drv, struct device *dev)
> __device_driver_lock(dev, dev->parent);
>
> /*
> - * If device has been removed or someone has already successfully
> - * bound a driver before us just skip the driver probe call.
> + * If device someone has already successfully bound a driver before us
> + * just skip the driver probe call.
> */
> - if (!dev->p->dead && !dev->driver)
> + if (!dev->driver)
> ret = driver_probe_device(drv, dev);
>
> __device_driver_unlock(dev, dev->parent);
It is kinda silly to keep the ->driver check here given that one caller
completely ignores the return value, and the other turns a 0 return into
-ENODEV anyway. So I think this check can go away, turning
device_driver_attach into a trivial wrapper for driver_probe_device
that adds locking, which might be useful to reflect in the naming.
> @@ -1047,19 +1050,11 @@ static void __driver_attach_async_helper(void *_dev, async_cookie_t cookie)
> {
> struct device *dev = _dev;
> struct device_driver *drv;
> - int ret = 0;
> + int ret;
>
> __device_driver_lock(dev, dev->parent);
> -
> drv = dev->p->async_driver;
> -
> - /*
> - * If device has been removed or someone has already successfully
> - * bound a driver before us just skip the driver probe call.
> - */
> - if (!dev->p->dead && !dev->driver)
> - ret = driver_probe_device(drv, dev);
> -
> + ret = driver_probe_device(drv, dev);
> __device_driver_unlock(dev, dev->parent);
And that helper could be used here as well.
