From: broonie@opensource.wolfsonmicro.com (Mark Brown)
To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
Subject: [RFC PATCH v3] drivercore: Add driver probe deferral mechanism
Date: Mon, 26 Sep 2011 15:16:43 +0100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20110926141643.GK2946@opensource.wolfsonmicro.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20110922184614.25419.84606.stgit@ponder>
On Thu, Sep 22, 2011 at 12:51:23PM -0600, Grant Likely wrote:
> Allow drivers to report at probe time that they cannot get all the resources
> required by the device, and should be retried at a later time.
> This should completely solve the problem of getting devices
> initialized in the right order. Right now this is mostly handled by
> mucking about with initcall ordering which is a complete hack, and
> doesn't even remotely handle the case where device drivers are in
> modules. This approach completely sidesteps the issues by allowing
> driver registration to occur in any order, and any driver can request
> to be retried after a few more other drivers get probed.
So, one issue I did think of the other day while putting some support in
the regulator core for using this: what happens with devices which can
optionally use a resource but don't rely on it? One example here is
that a lot of the MMC drivers have an optional regulator to control some
of the supplies for the cards. If the reglator isn't there it won't be
used but it's not a blocker for anything. Devices doing this would need
some way to figure out if they should -EBUSY or fail otherwise.
WARNING: multiple messages have this Message-ID (diff)
From: Mark Brown <broonie@opensource.wolfsonmicro.com>
To: Grant Likely <grant.likely@secretlab.ca>
Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org,
Greg Kroah-Hartman <greg@kroah.com>, Dilan Lee <dilee@nvidia.com>,
Manjunath GKondaiah <manjunath.gkondaiah@linaro.org>,
Arnd Bergmann <arnd@arndb.de>
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH v3] drivercore: Add driver probe deferral mechanism
Date: Mon, 26 Sep 2011 15:16:43 +0100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20110926141643.GK2946@opensource.wolfsonmicro.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20110922184614.25419.84606.stgit@ponder>
On Thu, Sep 22, 2011 at 12:51:23PM -0600, Grant Likely wrote:
> Allow drivers to report at probe time that they cannot get all the resources
> required by the device, and should be retried at a later time.
> This should completely solve the problem of getting devices
> initialized in the right order. Right now this is mostly handled by
> mucking about with initcall ordering which is a complete hack, and
> doesn't even remotely handle the case where device drivers are in
> modules. This approach completely sidesteps the issues by allowing
> driver registration to occur in any order, and any driver can request
> to be retried after a few more other drivers get probed.
So, one issue I did think of the other day while putting some support in
the regulator core for using this: what happens with devices which can
optionally use a resource but don't rely on it? One example here is
that a lot of the MMC drivers have an optional regulator to control some
of the supplies for the cards. If the reglator isn't there it won't be
used but it's not a blocker for anything. Devices doing this would need
some way to figure out if they should -EBUSY or fail otherwise.
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2011-09-26 14:16 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 63+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2011-09-22 18:51 [RFC PATCH v3] drivercore: Add driver probe deferral mechanism Grant Likely
2011-09-22 18:51 ` Grant Likely
2011-09-22 18:58 ` Joe Perches
2011-09-22 18:58 ` Joe Perches
2011-09-22 19:28 ` David Daney
2011-09-22 20:29 ` Alan Cox
2011-09-22 20:29 ` Alan Cox
2011-09-22 21:19 ` Grant Likely
2011-09-22 21:19 ` Grant Likely
2011-09-23 17:50 ` Valdis.Kletnieks at vt.edu
2011-09-23 17:50 ` Valdis.Kletnieks
2011-09-23 23:18 ` Grant Likely
2011-09-23 23:18 ` Grant Likely
2011-09-22 21:19 ` David Daney
2011-09-22 22:47 ` Alan Cox
2011-09-22 22:47 ` Alan Cox
2011-09-23 5:02 ` Grant Likely
2011-09-23 5:02 ` Grant Likely
2011-09-23 16:55 ` David Daney
2011-09-23 16:55 ` David Daney
2011-09-26 14:16 ` Mark Brown [this message]
2011-09-26 14:16 ` Mark Brown
2011-09-26 15:12 ` Russell King - ARM Linux
2011-09-26 15:12 ` Russell King - ARM Linux
2011-09-26 15:26 ` Mark Brown
2011-09-26 15:26 ` Mark Brown
2011-09-26 15:48 ` Grant Likely
2011-09-26 15:48 ` Grant Likely
2011-09-27 13:50 ` Arnd Bergmann
2011-09-27 13:50 ` Arnd Bergmann
2011-09-27 21:08 ` Grant Likely
2011-09-27 21:08 ` Grant Likely
2011-09-27 22:13 ` Mark Brown
2011-09-27 22:13 ` Mark Brown
2011-09-28 13:04 ` Arnd Bergmann
2011-09-28 13:04 ` Arnd Bergmann
2011-09-28 13:20 ` Mark Brown
2011-09-28 13:20 ` Mark Brown
2011-09-28 23:14 ` Grant Likely
2011-09-28 23:14 ` Grant Likely
2011-09-29 11:00 ` Mark Brown
2011-09-29 11:00 ` Mark Brown
2011-10-03 23:02 ` Kevin Hilman
2011-10-03 23:02 ` Kevin Hilman
2011-10-04 15:52 ` Grant Likely
2011-10-04 15:52 ` Grant Likely
2011-10-04 14:51 ` G, Manjunath Kondaiah
2011-10-04 14:51 ` G, Manjunath Kondaiah
2011-10-04 14:51 ` G, Manjunath Kondaiah
2011-10-04 15:58 ` Grant Likely
2011-10-04 15:58 ` Grant Likely
2011-10-04 15:58 ` Grant Likely
2011-10-04 18:35 ` G, Manjunath Kondaiah
2011-10-04 18:35 ` G, Manjunath Kondaiah
2011-10-04 23:35 ` Grant Likely
2011-10-04 23:35 ` Grant Likely
2011-10-07 3:31 ` G, Manjunath Kondaiah
2011-10-07 3:31 ` G, Manjunath Kondaiah
2011-10-11 20:47 ` Andrew Morton
2011-10-11 20:47 ` Andrew Morton
2011-10-11 21:07 ` David Daney
2011-10-13 4:19 ` Grant Likely
2011-10-13 4:19 ` Grant Likely
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=20110926141643.GK2946@opensource.wolfsonmicro.com \
--to=broonie@opensource.wolfsonmicro.com \
--cc=linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.