On Fri, Oct 14, 2011 at 12:39 PM, Alan Stern <stern@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On Fri, 14 Oct 2011, Grant Likely wrote: >> I'd be much happier to find a way to do this in core code though. And >> there is still a potential race condition here. For example, if G is >> in the middle of it's probe routine, and D gets probed between G >> registering GPIOs and calling dpm_move_last(), then we're in the same >> boat again. > > Of course, this means that G must call dpm_move_last() _before_ > registering its GPIOs. So the overall flow of a probe routine is > simple enough: > > 1. Check that all the resources you need are available. > > 2. If not, defer your probe. If yes, call dpm_move_last(). > > 3. Finish the probe, including registration of resources > that will be available to other drivers (such as child > devices). Alright, let's start with this. That also means that the current probe deferral patch doesn't need to have any knowledge of dpm_list added to it. It will be required only of the users. I'd still like to look closely at the ordering of dpm_list for the non-deferred use case, but that can be an entirely separate patch set. It doesn't need to block the probe deferral work. g. -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-mmc" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
