From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-path: Received: from moutng.kundenserver.de ([212.227.17.8]:60618 "EHLO moutng.kundenserver.de" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1753733Ab3CRK76 (ORCPT ); Mon, 18 Mar 2013 06:59:58 -0400 From: Arnd Bergmann To: Fabio Porcedda Subject: Re: [PATCH 10/10] drivers: misc: use module_platform_driver_probe() Date: Mon, 18 Mar 2013 10:58:51 +0000 Cc: H Hartley Sweeten , "linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" , "linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org" , "linux-media@vger.kernel.org" , "linux-ide@vger.kernel.org" , "lm-sensors@lm-sensors.org" , "linux-input@vger.kernel.org" , "linux-fbdev@vger.kernel.org" , "Greg Kroah-Hartman" , "Hans-Christian Egtvedt" , Grant Likely References: <1363266691-15757-1-git-send-email-fabio.porcedda@gmail.com> <201303152018.09094.arnd@arndb.de> In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: Text/Plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Message-Id: <201303181058.51641.arnd@arndb.de> Sender: linux-media-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: On Monday 18 March 2013, Fabio Porcedda wrote: > Since by using platform_driver_probe() the function > ep93xx_pwm_probe() is freed after initialization, > is better to use module_platform_drive_probe(). > IMHO i don't see any good reason to use module_platform_driver() for > this driver. As I commented earlier, the platform_driver_probe() and module_platform_drive_probe() interfaces are rather dangerous in combination with deferred probing, I would much prefer Harley's patch. Arnd