On Sun, Aug 19, 2012 at 12:23:38PM +0200, Bjørn Mork wrote: > Ming Lei <tom.leiming@xxxxxxxxx> writes: > > On Fri, Aug 17, 2012 at 10:42 PM, Greg Kroah-Hartman > > <gregkh@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > >> On Fri, Aug 17, 2012 at 10:38:16AM -0400, Alan Stern wrote: > >>> On Fri, 17 Aug 2012, Ming Lei wrote: > >>> > >>> > But, if HOTPLUG is not enabled, should device_add() trigger driver probe > >>> > further after kernel init is completed? Or even devices should be allowed > >>> > to add into system? > >>> > >>> Indeed, does it make any sense to have USB support at all if HOTPLUG > >>> isn't enabled? Should USB select HOTPLUG? > >> > >> Well, a long time ago people wanted to use USB but not have HOTPLUG > >> enabled in their systems for various (odd) embedded systems. As it's > >> pretty hard to even turn off HOTPLUG these days, I'd be more likely to > >> just remove CONFIG_HOTPLUG entirely given the dynamic nature of almost > >> all systems. > > > > It should make sense, otherwise all device id table should not use > > __devinit* markings. There are lots of pci driver usage on it. > > You might want to start here then: > > /** > * DEFINE_PCI_DEVICE_TABLE - macro used to describe a pci device table > * @_table: device table name > * > * This macro is used to create a struct pci_device_id array (a device table) > * in a generic manner. > */ > #define DEFINE_PCI_DEVICE_TABLE(_table) \ > const struct pci_device_id _table[] __devinitconst > That's not as big of a problem, as pci drivers are usually left as a module, and very few people dynamically add and remove pci devices on systems that do not have CONFIG_HOTPLUG enabled. Not to say that it couldn't happen, just that it is rare. And it shows again that __devinitconst just needs to be removed, I'll work on that soon and see what happens... greg k-h -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-usb" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
