All of lore.kernel.org
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Mark Brown <broonie@opensource.wolfsonmicro.com>
To: Arnd Bergmann <arnd@arndb.de>
Cc: Grant Likely <grant.likely@secretlab.ca>,
	Russell King - ARM Linux <linux@arm.linux.org.uk>,
	Greg Kroah-Hartman <greg@kroah.com>,
	linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
	Manjunath GKondaiah <manjunath.gkondaiah@linaro.org>,
	Dilan Lee <dilee@nvidia.com>,
	linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH v3] drivercore: Add driver probe deferral mechanism
Date: Wed, 28 Sep 2011 14:20:42 +0100	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <20110928132042.GL3279@opensource.wolfsonmicro.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <201109281504.34560.arnd@arndb.de>

On Wed, Sep 28, 2011 at 03:04:34PM +0200, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
> On Wednesday 28 September 2011, Mark Brown wrote:

> > Note that I'm not sure this answers the issue I was raising - the issue
> > isn't that the caller doesn't know what the error code means, the issue
> > is that in some cases the driver needs to take a decision about what
> > failure to get a resource means.  Does it mean that the driver can work
> > fine and be slightly less featureful or should it cause a deferral?

> Can you think of cases where this information cannot be put into the
> device tree or platform_data? If a board provides an optional feature,
> I think that should be a property of the device that the driver gets,
> so it can return an error when that feature is not around, or continue
> when it knows that the feature will never become available.

Not off the top of my head, most of the cases I'm aware of were cases
where the supply is mandatory but soft control is optional so don't need
to make this decision in the driver at all.  In the MMC case I didn't
push this as working with the people concerned was extremely painful.

WARNING: multiple messages have this Message-ID (diff)
From: broonie@opensource.wolfsonmicro.com (Mark Brown)
To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
Subject: [RFC PATCH v3] drivercore: Add driver probe deferral mechanism
Date: Wed, 28 Sep 2011 14:20:42 +0100	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <20110928132042.GL3279@opensource.wolfsonmicro.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <201109281504.34560.arnd@arndb.de>

On Wed, Sep 28, 2011 at 03:04:34PM +0200, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
> On Wednesday 28 September 2011, Mark Brown wrote:

> > Note that I'm not sure this answers the issue I was raising - the issue
> > isn't that the caller doesn't know what the error code means, the issue
> > is that in some cases the driver needs to take a decision about what
> > failure to get a resource means.  Does it mean that the driver can work
> > fine and be slightly less featureful or should it cause a deferral?

> Can you think of cases where this information cannot be put into the
> device tree or platform_data? If a board provides an optional feature,
> I think that should be a property of the device that the driver gets,
> so it can return an error when that feature is not around, or continue
> when it knows that the feature will never become available.

Not off the top of my head, most of the cases I'm aware of were cases
where the supply is mandatory but soft control is optional so don't need
to make this decision in the driver at all.  In the MMC case I didn't
push this as working with the people concerned was extremely painful.

  reply	other threads:[~2011-09-28 13:20 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 63+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2011-09-22 18:51 [RFC PATCH v3] drivercore: Add driver probe deferral mechanism Grant Likely
2011-09-22 18:51 ` Grant Likely
2011-09-22 18:58 ` Joe Perches
2011-09-22 18:58   ` Joe Perches
2011-09-22 19:28 ` David Daney
2011-09-22 20:29 ` Alan Cox
2011-09-22 20:29   ` Alan Cox
2011-09-22 21:19   ` Grant Likely
2011-09-22 21:19     ` Grant Likely
2011-09-23 17:50     ` Valdis.Kletnieks
2011-09-23 17:50       ` Valdis.Kletnieks at vt.edu
2011-09-23 23:18       ` Grant Likely
2011-09-23 23:18         ` Grant Likely
2011-09-22 21:19   ` David Daney
2011-09-22 22:47     ` Alan Cox
2011-09-22 22:47       ` Alan Cox
2011-09-23  5:02       ` Grant Likely
2011-09-23  5:02         ` Grant Likely
2011-09-23 16:55       ` David Daney
2011-09-23 16:55         ` David Daney
2011-09-26 14:16 ` Mark Brown
2011-09-26 14:16   ` Mark Brown
2011-09-26 15:12   ` Russell King - ARM Linux
2011-09-26 15:12     ` Russell King - ARM Linux
2011-09-26 15:26     ` Mark Brown
2011-09-26 15:26       ` Mark Brown
2011-09-26 15:48       ` Grant Likely
2011-09-26 15:48         ` Grant Likely
2011-09-27 13:50         ` Arnd Bergmann
2011-09-27 13:50           ` Arnd Bergmann
2011-09-27 21:08           ` Grant Likely
2011-09-27 21:08             ` Grant Likely
2011-09-27 22:13             ` Mark Brown
2011-09-27 22:13               ` Mark Brown
2011-09-28 13:04               ` Arnd Bergmann
2011-09-28 13:04                 ` Arnd Bergmann
2011-09-28 13:20                 ` Mark Brown [this message]
2011-09-28 13:20                   ` Mark Brown
2011-09-28 23:14               ` Grant Likely
2011-09-28 23:14                 ` Grant Likely
2011-09-29 11:00                 ` Mark Brown
2011-09-29 11:00                   ` Mark Brown
2011-10-03 23:02 ` Kevin Hilman
2011-10-03 23:02   ` Kevin Hilman
2011-10-04 15:52   ` Grant Likely
2011-10-04 15:52     ` Grant Likely
2011-10-04 14:51 ` G, Manjunath Kondaiah
2011-10-04 14:51   ` G, Manjunath Kondaiah
2011-10-04 14:51   ` G, Manjunath Kondaiah
2011-10-04 15:58   ` Grant Likely
2011-10-04 15:58     ` Grant Likely
2011-10-04 15:58     ` Grant Likely
2011-10-04 18:35     ` G, Manjunath Kondaiah
2011-10-04 18:35       ` G, Manjunath Kondaiah
2011-10-04 23:35       ` Grant Likely
2011-10-04 23:35         ` Grant Likely
2011-10-07  3:31         ` G, Manjunath Kondaiah
2011-10-07  3:31           ` G, Manjunath Kondaiah
2011-10-11 20:47 ` Andrew Morton
2011-10-11 20:47   ` Andrew Morton
2011-10-11 21:07   ` David Daney
2011-10-13  4:19     ` Grant Likely
2011-10-13  4:19       ` Grant Likely

Reply instructions:

You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:

* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
  and reply-to-all from there: mbox

  Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style

* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
  switches of git-send-email(1):

  git send-email \
    --in-reply-to=20110928132042.GL3279@opensource.wolfsonmicro.com \
    --to=broonie@opensource.wolfsonmicro.com \
    --cc=arnd@arndb.de \
    --cc=dilee@nvidia.com \
    --cc=grant.likely@secretlab.ca \
    --cc=greg@kroah.com \
    --cc=linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org \
    --cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=linux@arm.linux.org.uk \
    --cc=manjunath.gkondaiah@linaro.org \
    /path/to/YOUR_REPLY

  https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html

* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
  via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line before the message body. 
This is an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.