On Tuesday 19 March 2013, Fabio Porcedda wrote: > On Tue, Mar 19, 2013 at 5:48 PM, Arnd Bergmann <arnd@xxxxxxxx> wrote: > > On Tuesday 19 March 2013, Geert Uytterhoeven wrote: > >> 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? > > > > They will fail if someone changes the initialization order. That would > > already break drivers before deferred probing support (and was the reason > > we added feature in the first place), but now we can be much more liberal > > with the order in which drivers are initialized, except when they are > > using platform_driver_probe() > > > >> I guess we need a big fat WARN_ON(-EPROBE_DEFER) in > >> platform_driver_probe() to catch these? > > > > Yes, very good idea. > > If it's fine, I'll send a patch for that. That would be cool, yes. I looked at it earlier (after sending my email above) and couldn't find an easy way to do it though, because platform_drv_probe does not know whether it is called from platform_driver_probe or not. Maybe using something other than platform_driver_register would work here. Arnd -- 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
