Am 2021-01-21 12:01, schrieb Geert Uytterhoeven:
Hi Saravana,
On Thu, Jan 21, 2021 at 1:05 AM Saravana Kannan <saravanak@xxxxxxxxxx>
wrote:
On Wed, Jan 20, 2021 at 3:53 PM Michael Walle <michael@xxxxxxxx>
wrote:
> Am 2021-01-20 20:47, schrieb Saravana Kannan:
> > On Wed, Jan 20, 2021 at 11:28 AM Michael Walle <michael@xxxxxxxx>
> > wrote:
> >>
> >> [RESEND, fat-fingered the buttons of my mail client and converted
> >> all CCs to BCCs :(]
> >>
> >> Am 2021-01-20 20:02, schrieb Saravana Kannan:
> >> > On Wed, Jan 20, 2021 at 6:24 AM Rob Herring <robh@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >> >>
> >> >> On Wed, Jan 20, 2021 at 4:53 AM Michael Walle <michael@xxxxxxxx>
> >> >> wrote:
> >> >> >
> >> >> > fw_devlink will defer the probe until all suppliers are ready. We can't
> >> >> > use builtin_platform_driver_probe() because it doesn't retry after probe
> >> >> > deferral. Convert it to builtin_platform_driver().
> >> >>
> >> >> If builtin_platform_driver_probe() doesn't work with fw_devlink, then
> >> >> shouldn't it be fixed or removed?
> >> >
> >> > I was actually thinking about this too. The problem with fixing
> >> > builtin_platform_driver_probe() to behave like
> >> > builtin_platform_driver() is that these probe functions could be
> >> > marked with __init. But there are also only 20 instances of
> >> > builtin_platform_driver_probe() in the kernel:
> >> > $ git grep ^builtin_platform_driver_probe | wc -l
> >> > 20
> >> >
> >> > So it might be easier to just fix them to not use
> >> > builtin_platform_driver_probe().
> >> >
> >> > Michael,
> >> >
> >> > Any chance you'd be willing to help me by converting all these to
> >> > builtin_platform_driver() and delete builtin_platform_driver_probe()?
> >>
> >> If it just moving the probe function to the _driver struct and
> >> remove the __init annotations. I could look into that.
> >
> > Yup. That's pretty much it AFAICT.
> >
> > builtin_platform_driver_probe() also makes sure the driver doesn't ask
> > for async probe, etc. But I doubt anyone is actually setting async
> > flags and still using builtin_platform_driver_probe().
>
> Hasn't module_platform_driver_probe() the same problem? And there
> are ~80 drivers which uses that.
Yeah. The biggest problem with all of these is the __init markers.
Maybe some familiar with coccinelle can help?
And dropping them will increase memory usage.
Although I do have the changes for the builtin_platform_driver_probe()
ready, I don't think it makes much sense to send these unless we agree
on the increased memory footprint. While there are just a few
builtin_platform_driver_probe() and memory increase _might_ be
negligible, there are many more module_platform_driver_probe().
-michael
