On Tue, Mar 19, 2013 at 9:55 AM, Fabio Porcedda
<fabio.porcedda@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> On Mon, Mar 18, 2013 at 12:28 PM, Arnd Bergmann <arnd@xxxxxxxx> wrote:
>> On Monday 18 March 2013, Fabio Porcedda wrote:
>>> On Mon, Mar 18, 2013 at 11:58 AM, Arnd Bergmann <arnd@xxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>> > On Monday 18 March 2013, Fabio Porcedda wrote:
>>> >> Since by using platform_driver_probe() the function
>>> >> ep93xx_pwm_probe() is freed after initialization,
>>> >> is better to use module_platform_drive_probe().
>>> >> IMHO i don't see any good reason to use module_platform_driver() for
>>> >> this driver.
>>> >
>>> > As I commented earlier, the platform_driver_probe() and
>>> > module_platform_drive_probe() interfaces are rather dangerous in combination
>>> > with deferred probing, I would much prefer Harley's patch.
>>>
>>> Since those drivers don't use -EPROBE_DEFER i was thinking that they don't use
>>> deferred probing.
>>> I'm missing something?
>>
>> clk_get() may return -EPROBE_DEFER after ep93xx is converted to use the
>> common clk API. We currently return the value of clk_get from the probe()
>> function, which will automatically do the right thing as long as the probe
>> function remains reachable.
>
> Thanks for the explanation.
Hmm, so we may have drivers that (now) work perfectly fine with
module_platform_driver_probe()/platform_driver_probe(), but will start
failing suddenly in the future?
I guess we need a big fat WARN_ON(-EPROBE_DEFER) in
platform_driver_probe() to catch these?
Gr{oetje,eeting}s,
Geert
--
Geert Uytterhoeven -- There's lots of Linux beyond ia32 -- geert@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
In personal conversations with technical people, I call myself a hacker. But
when I'm talking to journalists I just say "programmer" or something like that.
-- Linus Torvalds
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-ide" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
