Re: [PATCH v2] driver: core: Allow subsystems to continue deferring probe

Greg Kroah-Hartman
2019-06-14T14:36:42Z

On Fri, Jun 14, 2019 at 12:10:10PM +0200, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> On Fri, Jun 14, 2019 at 11:39 AM Thierry Reding
> <thierry.reding@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > On Fri, Jun 14, 2019 at 11:10:58AM +0200, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote:
> > > On Thu, Jun 13, 2019 at 07:00:11PM +0200, Thierry Reding wrote:
> > > > From: Thierry Reding <treding@nvidia.com>
> > > >
>
> [cut]
>
> >
> > To avoid further back and forth, what exactly is it that you would have
> > me do? That is, what do you consider to be the correct way to do this?
> >
> > Would you prefer me to add another function with a different name that
> > reimplements the functionality only with the exception? Something along
> > the lines of:
> >
> > int driver_deferred_probe_check_state_continue(struct device *dev)
> > {
> > int ret;
> >
> > ret = driver_deferred_probe_check_state(dev);
> > if (ret == -ENODEV)
> > return -EPROBE_DEFER;
> >
> > return ret;
> > }
> >
> > ? I'd need to split that up some more to avoid the warning that the
> > inner function prints before returning -ENODEV, but that's a minor
> > detail. Would that API be more to your liking?
>
> Well, why don't you do
>
> static int deferred_probe_check_state_internal(struct device *dev)
> {
> if (!initcalls_done)
> return -EPROBE_DEFER;
>
> if (!deferred_probe_timeout) {
> dev_WARN(dev, "deferred probe timeout, ignoring dependency");
> return -ETIMEDOUT;
> }
>
> return 0;
> }
>
> int driver_deferred_probe_check_state(struct device *dev)
> {
> int ret = deferred_probe_check_state_internal(dev);
>
> if (ret)
> return ret;
>
> dev_warn(dev, "ignoring dependency for device, assuming no driver");
> return -ENODEV;
> }
>
> int driver_deferred_probe_check_state_continue(struct device *dev)
> {
> int ret = deferred_probe_check_state_internal(dev);
>
> if (ret)
> return ret;
>
> return -EPROBE_DEFER;
> }

Yes, that's much more sane. Self-decribing apis are the key here, I did
not want a boolean flag, or any other flag, as part of the public api as
they do not describe what the call does at all.

thanks,

greg k-h