On Tue, Nov 08, 2016 at 08:21:04PM +0100, Luis R. Rodriguez wrote: > On Tue, Nov 08, 2016 at 07:45:41AM +0100, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote: > > On Mon, Nov 07, 2016 at 10:22:50PM +0100, Luis R. Rodriguez wrote: > > > We have no explicit semantics to check if a driver / subsystem > > > supports deferred probe. > > > > Why would we need such a thing? > > It depends on the impact of a driver/subsystem not properly supporting > deffered probe, if this is no-op then such a need is not critical but > would be good to proactively inform developers / users so they avoid > its use, if this will cause issues its perhaps best to make this a > no-op through a check. AFAICT reviewing implications of not supporting > deferred probe on drivers/subsytsems for this framework is not clearly > spelled out, if we start considering re-using this framework for probe > ordering I'd hate to see issues come up without this corner case being > concretely considered.
It should not matter to the driver core if a subsystem, or a driver, supports or does not support deferred probe. It's a quick and simple solution to a complex problem that works well. Yes, you can iterate a lot of times, but that's fine, we have time at boot to do that (and really, it is fast.) > Furthermore -- how does this framework compare to Andrzej's resource tracking > solution? I confess I have not had a chance yet to review yet but in light of > this question it would be good to know if Andrzej's framework also requires > deferred probe as similar concerns would exist there as well. I have no idea what "framework" you are talking about here, do you have a pointer to patches? thanks, greg k-h
