From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: broonie@opensource.wolfsonmicro.com (Mark Brown) Date: Tue, 13 Nov 2012 15:35:50 +0900 Subject: [PATCH] RFC: pinctrl: grab default handler with bus notifiers In-Reply-To: <50A15A54.3090803@wwwdotorg.org> References: <1352636539-6318-1-git-send-email-linus.walleij@stericsson.com> <50A15A54.3090803@wwwdotorg.org> Message-ID: <20121113063546.GD18224@opensource.wolfsonmicro.com> To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org List-Id: linux-arm-kernel.lists.infradead.org On Mon, Nov 12, 2012 at 01:21:40PM -0700, Stephen Warren wrote: > On 11/11/2012 05:22 AM, Linus Walleij wrote: > > Another solution that was discussed was whether to move > > the default pinctrl handle and state grab to the device > > core as an optional field in struct device itself, but > > I'd like to first propose this less intrusive mechanism. > I think doing that approach makes a lot more sense; wouldn't it > completely avoid the issues with deferred probe that this notifier-based > method can't solve? It would also be very much in line with e.g. > dev_get_regmap() - if every resource that a driver required were handled > like that, then deferred probe could be significantly isolated into the > driver core rather than in every driver... I have to say that I agree with this, notifiers seem to make life more complicated for limited gain. Otherwise I guess we could enhance notifiers so that they're able to trigger deferrals? -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 836 bytes Desc: Digital signature URL: