From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: broonie@opensource.wolfsonmicro.com (Mark Brown) Date: Tue, 27 Sep 2011 23:13:10 +0100 Subject: [RFC PATCH v3] drivercore: Add driver probe deferral mechanism In-Reply-To: <20110927210849.GD3994@ponder.secretlab.ca> References: <20110922184614.25419.84606.stgit@ponder> <20110926152634.GN2946@opensource.wolfsonmicro.com> <201109271550.36427.arnd@arndb.de> <20110927210849.GD3994@ponder.secretlab.ca> Message-ID: <20110927221308.GA2674@opensource.wolfsonmicro.com> To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org List-Id: linux-arm-kernel.lists.infradead.org On Tue, Sep 27, 2011 at 03:08:49PM -0600, Grant Likely wrote: > Okay, will do. How does EPROBE_DEFER 518 sound? Note that I'm not sure this answers the issue I was raising - the issue isn't that the caller doesn't know what the error code means, the issue is that in some cases the driver needs to take a decision about what failure to get a resource means. Does it mean that the driver can work fine and be slightly less featureful or should it cause a deferral?