On Wed, Dec 5, 2018 at 12:36 PM Charles Keepax <ckeepax@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On Sun, Dec 02, 2018 at 11:23:07PM -0500, Paul Gortmaker wrote: > > The solution to #4 is similar - we delete the ".remove" function and > > the binding into the platform_driver struct. However, since the same > > ".remove" function could also be triggered by an "unbind" (such as for > > pass-through of a device to a guest instance) - so we also explicitly > > disable any unbind for the driver. > > > > The unbind mask allows us to ensure we will see if there was some odd > > corner case out there that was relying on it. Typically it would be a > > multi-port ethernet card passing a port through to a guest, so a > > sensible use case in MFD drivers seems highly unlikely. This same > > solution has already been used in multiple other mainline subsystems. > > > > I guess if this is a general direction thing, but it does seem > that module unload is not the only reason one might ever unbind a > driver. So are we sure we want to remove the option to unbind > these drivers? Certainly for testing it is sometimes useful. I personally never understood why these attributes are even present on non-modular drivers. If testing is about exercising unbind/bind to reintialize the code through a new call to .probe(), why would the developer not take it all the way through and make it a module? It just looks like a half-measure. Yours, Linus Walleij
