[PATCH 10/10] drivers: misc: use module_platform_driver_probe()
geert at linux-m68k.org
Tue Mar 19 05:04:32 EDT 2013
On Tue, Mar 19, 2013 at 9:55 AM, Fabio Porcedda
<fabio.porcedda at gmail.com> wrote:
> On Mon, Mar 18, 2013 at 12:28 PM, Arnd Bergmann <arnd at arndb.de> wrote:
>> On Monday 18 March 2013, Fabio Porcedda wrote:
>>> On Mon, Mar 18, 2013 at 11:58 AM, Arnd Bergmann <arnd at arndb.de> wrote:
>>> > On Monday 18 March 2013, Fabio Porcedda wrote:
>>> >> Since by using platform_driver_probe() the function
>>> >> ep93xx_pwm_probe() is freed after initialization,
>>> >> is better to use module_platform_drive_probe().
>>> >> IMHO i don't see any good reason to use module_platform_driver() for
>>> >> this driver.
>>> > As I commented earlier, the platform_driver_probe() and
>>> > module_platform_drive_probe() interfaces are rather dangerous in combination
>>> > with deferred probing, I would much prefer Harley's patch.
>>> Since those drivers don't use -EPROBE_DEFER i was thinking that they don't use
>>> deferred probing.
>>> I'm missing something?
>> clk_get() may return -EPROBE_DEFER after ep93xx is converted to use the
>> common clk API. We currently return the value of clk_get from the probe()
>> function, which will automatically do the right thing as long as the probe
>> function remains reachable.
> Thanks for the explanation.
Hmm, so we may have drivers that (now) work perfectly fine with
module_platform_driver_probe()/platform_driver_probe(), but will start
failing suddenly in the future?
I guess we need a big fat WARN_ON(-EPROBE_DEFER) in
platform_driver_probe() to catch these?
Geert Uytterhoeven -- There's lots of Linux beyond ia32 -- geert at linux-m68k.org
In personal conversations with technical people, I call myself a hacker. But
when I'm talking to journalists I just say "programmer" or something like that.
-- Linus Torvalds
More information about the linux-arm-kernel