On Fri, Mar 15, 2013 at 12:28 PM, Arnd Bergmann <arnd@xxxxxxxx> wrote: > On Friday 15 March 2013, Fabio Porcedda wrote: >> >> * Regarding the use of module_platform_driver_probe, I'm a little worried about >> >> the interactions with deferred probing. I don't think there are any regressions, >> >> but we should probably make people aware that one cannot return -EPROBE_DEFER >> >> from a platform_driver_probe function. >> >> The use of module_platform_driver_probe() doesn't change anything about that, >> it's exactly the same thing as using "return platform_driver_probe()". >> I'm right or I'm missing something? Maybe are you just speaking about >> the misuse of "platform_driver_probe"? > > Yes, that was what I meant. The point is that if we need to review or remove > all uses of platform_driver_probe, it would be better not to introduce a > module_platform_driver_probe() interface to make it easier to use. Just to let you know, the module_platform_driver_probe() macro is already in v3.9-rc1 and is already used by some drivers. In linux-next there are already many patches that use that macro. Best regards -- Fabio Porcedda -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-input" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
