Re: [PATCH 1/7] platform_device: better support builtin boilerplate avoidance

From: Linus Walleij <linus.walleij@linaro.org>
To: Paul Gortmaker <paul.gortmaker@windriver.com>
Cc: "linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
	Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/7] platform_device: better support builtin boilerplate avoidance
Date: Wed, 10 Jun 2015 09:35:14 +0200	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <CACRpkda4U7k_Qh7VBOMXo0278bd_r2sn=ZvbOkCLkxs_wJZtsw@mail.gmail.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <556F0A17.2050306@windriver.com>

On Wed, Jun 3, 2015 at 4:07 PM, Paul Gortmaker
<paul.gortmaker@windriver.com> wrote:
> On 15-06-02 05:19 AM, Linus Walleij wrote:

>> For example if this is a builtin regulator, clock, GPIO, DMA etc
>> driver, we want to suppress the binding/unbinding from userspace
>> too, since these drivers provide resources to others and
>> if you unbind them, nasty things happen. Unbinding/rebinding
>> is fine as long as noone else depend on you. However for
>> a large number of builtins, that is the case :P
>
> So, to summarize:
>
> 1) Currently drivers can unbind that really should not do so.
>
> 2) This is not a new issue, nor is it introduced by this series.
>
> 3) We can't set policy based on built in vs modular; the only
>    sane thing appears to be to let the driver decide itself.

Yeah I think you're right. If I wanted to fix this problem I
should come up with some patches to help driver authors
do it themselves in a simpler way.

Yours,
Linus Walleij