[PATCH 2/5] drivercore: Add driver probe deferral mechanism

Ming Lei tom.leiming at gmail.com
Tue Oct 11 08:29:18 EDT 2011

On Tue, Oct 11, 2011 at 1:37 AM, Andrei Warkentin <awarkentin at vmware.com> wrote:
> Hi,
> ----- Original Message -----
>> From: "Greg KH" <greg at kroah.com>
>> To: "Josh Triplett" <josh at joshtriplett.org>
>> Cc: "G, Manjunath Kondaiah" <manjugk at ti.com>, linux-arm-kernel at lists.infradead.org, "Grant Likely"
>> <grant.likely at secretlab.ca>, linux-omap at vger.kernel.org, linux-mmc at vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel at vger.kernel.org,
>> "Dilan Lee" <dilee at nvidia.com>, "Mark Brown" <broonie at opensource.wolfsonmicro.com>, Manjunath at jasper.es
>> Sent: Saturday, October 8, 2011 11:55:02 AM
>> Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/5] drivercore: Add driver probe deferral mechanism
> I'm a bit of a fly on the wall here, but I'm curious how this impacts suspend/resume.
> device_initialize->device_pm_init are called from device_register, so certainly this
> patch doesn't also ensure that the PM ordering matches probe ordering, which is bound
> to break suspend, right? Was this ever tested with the OMAP target? Shouldn't the

Inside device_add(), device_pm_add is called before bus_probe_device,
so the patch can't change the device order in pm list, and just change
the driver probe order.

> PM change be also part of this patch set? I don't see why you would want to have this in
> without the PM changes.

Ming Lei

More information about the linux-arm-kernel mailing list