From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: skannan@codeaurora.org (Saravana Kannan) Date: Thu, 09 May 2013 11:12:24 -0700 Subject: [PATCH 1/3] driver core: Add API to wait for deferred probe to complete during init In-Reply-To: References: <1368076726-11492-1-git-send-email-skannan@codeaurora.org> <1368076726-11492-2-git-send-email-skannan@codeaurora.org> <518BD453.2010602@codeaurora.org> Message-ID: <518BE708.8040005@codeaurora.org> To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org List-Id: linux-arm-kernel.lists.infradead.org On 05/09/2013 11:09 AM, Grant Likely wrote: > On Thu, May 9, 2013 at 5:52 PM, Saravana Kannan wrote: >> On 05/09/2013 04:50 AM, Grant Likely wrote: >>> >>> On Thu, May 9, 2013 at 11:07 AM, Ming Lei wrote: >>>> >>>> On Thu, May 9, 2013 at 1:18 PM, Saravana Kannan >>>> wrote: >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> The most obvious fallback of using late_initcall_sync() also doesn't >>>>> work >>>>> since the deferred probing work initated during late_initcall() is done >>>>> in >>>>> a workqueue. So, frameworks that want to wait for all devices to finish >>>>> probing during init will now have to wait for the deferred workqueue to >>>>> finish it's work. This patch adds a wait_for_init_deferred_probe_done() >>>>> API >>>> >>>> >>>> flush_workqueue() has been added in deferred_probe_initcall(), so looks >>>> it >>>> should be OK for your problem, doesn't it? >>> >>> >>> It looks like Saravana is using a kernel that already does that based >>> on object bb5645e from the diff. So if he is still having problem, >>> then there is probably another deferred probe that is triggered after >>> the deferred probe lateinitcall is executed. It would be good to know >>> what driver is getting deferred past clearing the queue. Or has this >>> been rebased from an earlier kernel? It may no longer be necessary. >> >> >> Sorry, it was mindless rebase late at night. I missed the addition of the >> flush_workqueue(). That takes care of my immediate needs. Sorry for wasting >> your time. >> >> But the other patches to move clock and regulator calls to late_init_sync >> should still be necessary. Right? Or are we going to depend on the Makefile >> ordering to determine the order of the lateinit calls? (I would rather not). > > You'll need to make sure the regulator and clocks defer to after all > the late initcalls are complete. That will ensure that the deferred > queue has been processed. > Ok, then I guess I'll still need to send out the other 2 patches. -Saravana -- The Qualcomm Innovation Center, Inc. is a member of the Code Aurora Forum, hosted by The Linux Foundation