From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1754048AbbKBQoF (ORCPT ); Mon, 2 Nov 2015 11:44:05 -0500 Received: from mail-io0-f176.google.com ([209.85.223.176]:35161 "EHLO mail-io0-f176.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1753303AbbKBQoB (ORCPT ); Mon, 2 Nov 2015 11:44:01 -0500 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <20151019081125.GS2711@lukather> References: <1435010474-13419-1-git-send-email-ruslan.bilovol@gmail.com> <20151019081125.GS2711@lukather> Date: Mon, 2 Nov 2015 18:44:00 +0200 Message-ID: Subject: Re: [PATCH v5 0/5] usb/gadget: independent registration of gadgets and gadget drivers From: Ruslan Bilovol To: Maxime Ripard Cc: "Balbi, Felipe" , "linux-usb@vger.kernel.org" , "linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" , Krzysztof Opasiak , Alan Stern , Peter Chen , "gregkh@linuxfoundation.org" , Andrzej Pietrasiewicz Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Hi Maxime, On Mon, Oct 19, 2015 at 11:11 AM, Maxime Ripard wrote: > Hi, > > On Tue, Jun 23, 2015 at 01:01:09AM +0300, Ruslan Bilovol wrote: >> This patchset adds independent registration of gadgets >> and gadget drivers to udc-core. This is very useful for >> built-in modules into kernel case since it's possible >> situation that gadget driver is probing at a time >> when no gadgets are registered in udc-core. >> In this case instead of silently failing without >> of any attempt to recover, with independent registration >> of gadgets and gadget drivers there is no matter >> in which order gadgets and gadget drivers are >> probed/registered. >> >> This patch has side-effect on gadget drivers that had >> __init/__exit attributes on some paths like bind/unbind >> and (since bind/unbind may happen at any time) should >> not use them now. This is covered by forth patch >> > > Has there been any progress on these patches? They're fixing some real > issue that we're seeing, and it seems to both work quite well and not > generate a lot of pushback. This patch series has stack on review due to different views on checking input parameters of externally visible function. I see there is no any way to get these patches accepted other than skip checking validity of some input parameters as was pointed by Alan, although I disagree with it. I will post updated patch series later Best regards, Ruslan > > Thanks! > Maxime > > -- > Maxime Ripard, Free Electrons > Embedded Linux, Kernel and Android engineering > http://free-electrons.com