On 12/17/21 12:59 AM, Dan Carpenter wrote: > On Thu, Dec 16, 2021 at 05:38:04PM +0900, Chanwoo Choi wrote: >>> >>> To be honest, I'm not sure how this differs from other functions which >>> return -EPROBE_DEFER. How do other functions guarantee they will only >>> be called from probe()? >> >> If it is possible to know extcon_get_extcon_dev() will be only callled on probe, >> it is no problem. But, it is not able to guarantee that extcon_get_extcon_dev() >> is called on probe. Because of this reason, this issue should be handled in each device driver. >> >> -EPROBE_DEFER is only for probe step. If return -EPROBE_DEFER except for probe, >> it is wrong return value. > > The future is vast and unknowable. We can't really future proof code > and we should never try do that if it makes the code more complicated > right now. > > When Andy submitted basically the same patch as me three years ago we > worried about future developers so we didn't merge his patch. But > three years later no non-probe() were introduced. Meanwhile the bad API > created bugs in the kernel for current users. As you mentioned, there were no use case except for probe step. OK. I agree this approach. For merging this patch, need to get ack from power-supply and usb maintainer. After getting the ack, I'll merge it. Thanks. -- Best Regards, Chanwoo Choi Samsung Electronics
