On Thursday, July 24, 2014 2:40 AM, Lucas Stach wrote:
>
> The current code is not prepared for the driver to be
> bound/unbound arbitrarily.
>
> Prevent possible user visible issues by disabling the
> bind sysfs attributes.
>
> Signed-off-by: Lucas Stach <l.stach@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> ---
> drivers/pci/host/pci-imx6.c | 1 +
> 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+)
>
> diff --git a/drivers/pci/host/pci-imx6.c b/drivers/pci/host/pci-imx6.c
> index a568efaa331c..ceb1677884b2 100644
> --- a/drivers/pci/host/pci-imx6.c
> +++ b/drivers/pci/host/pci-imx6.c
> @@ -600,6 +600,7 @@ static struct platform_driver imx6_pcie_driver = {
> .name = "imx6q-pcie",
> .owner = THIS_MODULE,
> .of_match_table = imx6_pcie_of_match,
> + .suppress_bind_attrs = true,
pci-imx6.c already uses platform_driver_probe().
In platform_driver_probe(),suppress_bind_attrs is set as true as below,
./drivers/base/platform.c
int __init_or_module platform_driver_probe(struct platform_driver *drv,
int (*probe)(struct platform_device *))
{
int retval, code;
/*
* Prevent driver from requesting probe deferral to avoid further
* futile probe attempts.
*/
drv->prevent_deferred_probe = true;
/* make sure driver won't have bind/unbind attributes */
drv->driver.suppress_bind_attrs = true;
So, it looks duplicated.
Is there any reason to do it twice?
Best regards,
Jingoo Han
> },
> };
>
> --
> 2.0.1
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-pci" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
