On Wed, Dec 23, 2015 at 07:56:44PM +0300, Peter Mamonov wrote: > On Wed, 23 Dec 2015 17:35:51 +0100 > Alexander Aring <alex.aring@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > On Wed, Dec 23, 2015 at 07:10:58PM +0300, Peter Mamonov wrote: > > > Dear All, > > > > > > I've ported an UHCI driver from the u-boot to the barebox (WIP). To > > > interoperate with the EHCI driver, the UHCI driver should be probed > > > ater the EHCI driver. Both drivers are binded via the device tree > > > mechanism. How can i achieve the correct probe order? > > > > > > > Normally this should done by returning "-EPROBE_DEFER" inside the > > probe function. There was some RFC last years for supporting > > EPROBE_DEFER [0] and it seems these are mainline. > > > > However you need some bool which indicates that the EHCI driver is > > probed. > > Thanks, Alex. As i understand, this is the linux-way solution. > > Sasha, is it ok to add a global variable to indicate the EHCI presence? > Or should we follow the way proposed by the mentioned RFCs, i.e. > introduce dependencies between drivers? > mhhh, maybe a simple "get_device_by_name" works here. If returning NULL then return -EPROBE_DEFER. Don't know if this is a good solution, name need to be unique then. btw: Just found that "of_find_device_by_node" returns -EPROBE_DEFER when nothing was found. This was introduced by the patch series. Maybe it helps to look how the current use-cases deals with -EPROBE_DEFER or get_device_by_name is enough. - Alex _______________________________________________ barebox mailing list barebox@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/barebox
