From: khilman@ti.com (Kevin Hilman)
To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
Subject: [RFC PATCH v3] drivercore: Add driver probe deferral mechanism
Date: Mon, 03 Oct 2011 16:02:57 -0700 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <87d3edllum.fsf@ti.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20110922184614.25419.84606.stgit@ponder> (Grant Likely's message of "Thu, 22 Sep 2011 12:51:23 -0600")
Grant Likely <grant.likely@secretlab.ca> writes:
> 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.
This is great work, thanks!
For the TODO list:
While the proposed patch should solve probe order dependencies, I don't
think it will solve the suspend/resume ordering dependencies, which are
typically the same.
Currenly suspend/resume order is based on the order devices are *added*
(device_add() -> device_pm_add() -> device added to dpm_list), so
unfortunately, deferring probe isn't going to affect suspend/resume
ordering.
Extending this to also address suspend/resume ordering by also changing
when the device is added to the dpm_list (or possibly creating another
list) should probably be explored as well.
Kevin
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2011-10-03 23:02 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 29+ 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 18:58 ` Joe Perches
2011-09-22 20:29 ` Alan Cox
2011-09-22 21:19 ` Grant Likely
2011-09-23 17:50 ` Valdis.Kletnieks at vt.edu
2011-09-23 23:18 ` Grant Likely
[not found] ` <4E7BA661.7070903@cavium.com>
2011-09-22 22:47 ` Alan Cox
2011-09-23 5:02 ` Grant Likely
2011-09-23 16:55 ` David Daney
2011-09-26 14:16 ` Mark Brown
2011-09-26 15:12 ` Russell King - ARM Linux
2011-09-26 15:26 ` Mark Brown
2011-09-26 15:48 ` Grant Likely
2011-09-27 13:50 ` Arnd Bergmann
2011-09-27 21:08 ` Grant Likely
2011-09-27 22:13 ` Mark Brown
2011-09-28 13:04 ` Arnd Bergmann
2011-09-28 13:20 ` Mark Brown
2011-09-28 23:14 ` Grant Likely
2011-09-29 11:00 ` Mark Brown
2011-10-03 23:02 ` Kevin Hilman [this message]
2011-10-04 15:52 ` Grant Likely
2011-10-04 14:51 ` G, Manjunath Kondaiah
2011-10-04 15:58 ` Grant Likely
2011-10-04 18:35 ` G, Manjunath Kondaiah
2011-10-04 23:35 ` Grant Likely
2011-10-07 3:31 ` G, Manjunath Kondaiah
2011-10-11 20:47 ` Andrew Morton
[not found] ` <4E94B01D.2050402@cavium.com>
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=87d3edllum.fsf@ti.com \
--to=khilman@ti.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 a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).