At Thu, 09 Aug 2012 10:21:15 +0200, Takashi Iwai wrote: > > At Thu, 9 Aug 2012 10:07:13 +0200, > Thierry Reding wrote: > > > > On Thu, Aug 09, 2012 at 09:42:48AM +0200, Takashi Iwai wrote: > > > At Thu, 9 Aug 2012 09:36:42 +0200, > > > Thierry Reding wrote: > > > > > > > > On Thu, Aug 09, 2012 at 09:31:30AM +0200, Takashi Iwai wrote: > > > > > At Thu, 9 Aug 2012 09:08:13 +0200, > > > > > Thierry Reding wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > On Thu, Aug 09, 2012 at 08:57:13AM +0200, Takashi Iwai wrote: > > > > > > > At Thu, 9 Aug 2012 08:45:23 +0200, > > > > > > > Thierry Reding wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Recent changes to the firmware loading helpers cause drivers to > > > > > > > > stall > > > > > > > > when firmware is loaded during the module_init() call. The > > > > > > > > snd-hda-intel > > > > > > > > module requests firmware if the patch= parameter is used to > > > > > > > > load a patch > > > > > > > > file. This patch works around the problem by deferring the > > > > > > > > probe in such > > > > > > > > cases, which will cause the module to load successfully and the > > > > > > > > driver > > > > > > > > binding to the device outside the module_init() call. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Is the "recent" change meant 3.6 kernel, or in linux-next? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > In anyway, I don't understand why such a change was allowed. Most > > > > > > > drivers do call request_firmware() at the device probing time. > > > > > > > If this really has to be resolved in the driver side, it must be > > > > > > > a bug > > > > > > > in the firmware loader core code. > > > > > > > > > > > > A good explanation of the problem and subsequent discussion can be > > > > > > found > > > > > > here: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > http://article.gmane.org/gmane.linux.drivers.video-input-infrastructure/49975 > > > > > > > > > > Yeah, but it doesn't justify this ugly module option. > > > > > It's a simple bug. Papering over it with this option doesn't fix > > > > > anything. > > > > > > > > It's not an option, all it does is defer probing if and only if the > > > > patch parameter was specified to make sure the firmware load won't > > > > stall. I realize that this may not be an optimal solution, but at least > > > > it fixes the problem with no fallout. > > > > > > Ah sorry, I misread the patch. > > > > > > Then it shouldn't be checked at that point. Since 3.5 kernel, the > > > probing code was already split for vga_switcheroo support. > > > > Yes, I saw that. But unless you actually use vga_switcheroo, the second > > stage, azx_probe_continue(), will still be called from azx_probe() and > > therefore ultimately from module_init(). > > Yeah, but this could be easily delayed. The split was already done, > so the next step would be to return after the first half at probe, > then call the second half later. > > > Before coming up with this patch I actually did play around a bit with > > using the asynchronous firmware load functions but it turned out to be > > rather difficult to do so I opted for the easy way. The biggest problem > > I faced was that since patch loading needs to be done very early on, a > > lot of the initialization would need to be done after .probe() and many > > things could still fail, so cleaning up after errors would become > > increasingly difficult. > > async probe is also on my TODO list, but it's deferred ;) > > > > The point you added is the second stage. > > > > I don't understand this sentence. > > I meant that your patch added the check at the second-half probing > function (azx_probe_contine()). That is, it could be already the > point triggered by vga_switcheroo handler, not via module_init any > longer. > > So, after rethinking what you suggested, I wrote a quick patch below. > Could you check whether this works?
Obviously it won't work if the module is re-loaded manually. The -EPROBE_DEFER would work only at boot time, as it seems. Takashi -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/