From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Fabio Porcedda Subject: Re: [PATCH 10/10] drivers: misc: use module_platform_driver_probe() Date: Mon, 18 Mar 2013 12:20:07 +0100 Message-ID: References: <1363266691-15757-1-git-send-email-fabio.porcedda@gmail.com> <201303152018.09094.arnd@arndb.de> <201303181058.51641.arnd@arndb.de> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Return-path: In-Reply-To: <201303181058.51641.arnd@arndb.de> Sender: linux-input-owner@vger.kernel.org To: Arnd Bergmann Cc: H Hartley Sweeten , "linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" , "linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org" , "linux-media@vger.kernel.org" , "linux-ide@vger.kernel.org" , "lm-sensors@lm-sensors.org" , "linux-input@vger.kernel.org" , "linux-fbdev@vger.kernel.org" , Greg Kroah-Hartman , Hans-Christian Egtvedt , Grant Likely List-Id: linux-ide@vger.kernel.org On Mon, Mar 18, 2013 at 11:58 AM, Arnd Bergmann 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? Best regards Fabio Porcedda > Arnd From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1752604Ab3CRLUb (ORCPT ); Mon, 18 Mar 2013 07:20:31 -0400 Received: from mail-ob0-f181.google.com ([209.85.214.181]:61679 "EHLO mail-ob0-f181.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751412Ab3CRLU2 (ORCPT ); Mon, 18 Mar 2013 07:20:28 -0400 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <201303181058.51641.arnd@arndb.de> References: <1363266691-15757-1-git-send-email-fabio.porcedda@gmail.com> <201303152018.09094.arnd@arndb.de> <201303181058.51641.arnd@arndb.de> From: Fabio Porcedda Date: Mon, 18 Mar 2013 12:20:07 +0100 Message-ID: Subject: Re: [PATCH 10/10] drivers: misc: use module_platform_driver_probe() To: Arnd Bergmann Cc: H Hartley Sweeten , "linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" , "linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org" , "linux-media@vger.kernel.org" , "linux-ide@vger.kernel.org" , "lm-sensors@lm-sensors.org" , "linux-input@vger.kernel.org" , "linux-fbdev@vger.kernel.org" , Greg Kroah-Hartman , Hans-Christian Egtvedt , Grant Likely Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Mon, Mar 18, 2013 at 11:58 AM, Arnd Bergmann 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? Best regards Fabio Porcedda > Arnd From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Fabio Porcedda Date: Mon, 18 Mar 2013 11:20:07 +0000 Subject: Re: [PATCH 10/10] drivers: misc: use module_platform_driver_probe() Message-Id: List-Id: References: <1363266691-15757-1-git-send-email-fabio.porcedda@gmail.com> <201303152018.09094.arnd@arndb.de> <201303181058.51641.arnd@arndb.de> In-Reply-To: <201303181058.51641.arnd@arndb.de> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org On Mon, Mar 18, 2013 at 11:58 AM, Arnd Bergmann 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? Best regards Fabio Porcedda > Arnd From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: fabio.porcedda@gmail.com (Fabio Porcedda) Date: Mon, 18 Mar 2013 12:20:07 +0100 Subject: [PATCH 10/10] drivers: misc: use module_platform_driver_probe() In-Reply-To: <201303181058.51641.arnd@arndb.de> References: <1363266691-15757-1-git-send-email-fabio.porcedda@gmail.com> <201303152018.09094.arnd@arndb.de> <201303181058.51641.arnd@arndb.de> Message-ID: To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org List-Id: linux-arm-kernel.lists.infradead.org On Mon, Mar 18, 2013 at 11:58 AM, Arnd Bergmann 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? Best regards Fabio Porcedda > Arnd