On Tue, Mar 19, 2013 at 6:59 PM, Arnd Bergmann <arnd@xxxxxxxx> wrote: > 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 I think we can check inside the deferred_probe_work_func() if the dev->probe function pointer is equal to platform_drv_probe_fail(). 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
