On Tue, Dec 13, 2016 at 07:19:15PM +0200, Laurent Pinchart wrote: > Hi Daniel, > > On Tuesday 13 Dec 2016 18:11:34 Daniel Vetter wrote: > > On Tue, Dec 13, 2016 at 02:59:48PM +0200, Laurent Pinchart wrote: > > > From: Laurent Pinchart <laurent.pinchart@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> > > > > > > The drm driver .load() operation is prone to race conditions as it > > > initializes the driver after registering the device nodes. Its usage is > > > deprecated, inline it in the probe function and call drm_dev_alloc() and > > > drm_dev_register() explicitly. > > > > > > For consistency inline the .unload() handler in the remove function as > > > well. > > > > > > Signed-off-by: Laurent Pinchart <laurent.pinchart@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> > > > Acked-by: Daniel Vetter <daniel.vetter@xxxxxxxx> > > > --- > > > Changes since v1: > > > > > > - Removed manual the drm_connector_register() that caused sysfs-related > > > > > > warnings > > > > Hm, what did go boom there? We should catch multiple calls to > > drm_connector_register ... > > Trying to register the connector before the DRM device is registered makes > sysfs unhappy due to the lack of a parent. Autch. I think for i915 we're safe though - our trouble is that mst hotplug starts to happen before we call drm_dev_register (but it's still safe there already), because atm the initial topology detection works out to be async. But we already have the drm_device at least initialized, which I guess with DT and probe-defer isn't guaranteed. Or does this even go boom if you just register a child before the parent? -Daniel > > > > drivers/gpu/drm/shmobile/shmob_drm_crtc.c | 7 +- > > > drivers/gpu/drm/shmobile/shmob_drm_drv.c | 206 +++++++++++------------- > > > 2 files changed, 104 insertions(+), 109 deletions(-) > > -- > Regards, > > Laurent Pinchart > -- Daniel Vetter Software Engineer, Intel Corporation http://blog.ffwll.ch
