From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Daniel Drake Subject: Re: Best practice device tree design for display subsystems/DRM Date: Tue, 2 Jul 2013 12:54:41 -0600 Message-ID: References: <20130702184305.GB13924@flint.arm.linux.org.uk> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: In-Reply-To: <20130702184305.GB13924-f404yB8NqCZvn6HldHNs0ANdhmdF6hFW@public.gmane.org> List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: devicetree-discuss-bounces+gldd-devicetree-discuss=m.gmane.org-uLR06cmDAlY/bJ5BZ2RsiQ@public.gmane.org Sender: "devicetree-discuss" To: Russell King Cc: =?ISO-8859-1?Q?Jean=2DFran=E7ois_Moine?= , "devicetree-discuss-uLR06cmDAlY/bJ5BZ2RsiQ@public.gmane.org" , dri-devel-PD4FTy7X32lNgt0PjOBp9y5qC8QIuHrW@public.gmane.org, Sebastian Hesselbarth List-Id: devicetree@vger.kernel.org On Tue, Jul 2, 2013 at 12:43 PM, Russell King wrote: > I will point out that relying on driver probing orders has already been > stated by driver model people to be unsafe. This is why I will not > adopt such a solution for my driver; it is a bad design. Just to clarify, what you're objecting to is effectively the following? Because it is not guaranteed in the future that the probe order will be the same as the platform_driver_register() calls? static int __init exynos_drm_init(void) { ret = platform_driver_register(&hdmi_driver); if (ret < 0) goto out_hdmi; ret = platform_driver_register(&mixer_driver); if (ret < 0) goto out_mixer; ret = platform_driver_register(&exynos_drm_common_hdmi_driver); if (ret < 0) goto out_common_hdmi; ret = platform_driver_register(&exynos_drm_platform_driver); if (ret < 0) goto out_drm; (exynos_drm_platform_driver is the driver that creates the drm_device) Thanks Daniel