On 10/20/20 12:11 AM, Xu Yilun wrote:
>>>>> int __dfl_driver_register(struct dfl_driver *dfl_drv, struct module *owner)
>>>>> {
>>>>> - if (!dfl_drv || !dfl_drv->probe || !dfl_drv->id_table)
>>>>> + if (!dfl_drv || !dfl_drv->probe)
>>>> id_table is still needed for the normal case.
>>>>
>>>> Instead of removing this check, could you add something like
>>>>
>>>> || (!dfl_drv->is_override && !dfl_drv->id_table)
>>> I don't think it is needed. Seems is_override and !id_table are duplicated
>>> conditions for this implementation. And it may make confusing, e.g. could
>>> a driver been force matched when is_override is not set?
>>>
>>> I think we could make it simple, if the dfl driver didn't provide the
>>> id_table, normally it could not match any device. I think it could be
>>> easily understood by dfl driver developers.
>>>
>> Then an ASSERT should be added in dfl_bus_match() for id_entry.
> I didn't get your idea. What Assertion should be added for id_entry?
> BUG_ON(id_entry == NULL)? Then dfl-uio-pdev can't be inserted before
> driver_override is set.
>
> I think it is normal case that a driver is successfully registered but
> doesn't match any device because it provides no id_table.
Ok, i see your point.
Thanks for the explanation.
Tom
>
> Thanks,
> Yilun.
>
