From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-path: Received: from moutng.kundenserver.de ([212.227.126.187]:56488 "EHLO moutng.kundenserver.de" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1753730Ab3CSQsm (ORCPT ); Tue, 19 Mar 2013 12:48:42 -0400 From: Arnd Bergmann To: Geert Uytterhoeven Subject: Re: [PATCH 10/10] drivers: misc: use module_platform_driver_probe() Date: Tue, 19 Mar 2013 16:48:31 +0000 Cc: Fabio Porcedda , 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> In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: Text/Plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Message-Id: <201303191648.31527.arnd@arndb.de> Sender: linux-media-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: On Tuesday 19 March 2013, Geert Uytterhoeven wrote: > Hmm, so we may have drivers that (now) work perfectly fine with > module_platform_driver_probe()/platform_driver_probe(), but will start > failing suddenly in the future? They will fail if someone changes the initialization order. That would already break drivers before deferred probing support (and was the reason we added feature in the first place), but now we can be much more liberal with the order in which drivers are initialized, except when they are using platform_driver_probe() > I guess we need a big fat WARN_ON(-EPROBE_DEFER) in > platform_driver_probe() to catch these? Yes, very good idea. Arnd