On Mon, Dec 23, 2013 at 02:41:31PM +0200, Peter Ujfalusi wrote:
> The proposed solution is to try the deferred queue once more when the last
> driver is asking for deferring and we had drivers probed while this last
> driver was probing.
Greg, this patch doesn't seem to have been applied but it looks like
it's addressing a real issue and seems like a reasonable fix? Peter's
analysis seems good to me.
On Mon, Feb 24, 2014 at 10:40:32AM +0900, Mark Brown wrote:
> On Mon, Dec 23, 2013 at 02:41:31PM +0200, Peter Ujfalusi wrote:
>
> > The proposed solution is to try the deferred queue once more when the last
> > driver is asking for deferring and we had drivers probed while this last
> > driver was probing.
>
> Greg, this patch doesn't seem to have been applied but it looks like
> it's addressing a real issue and seems like a reasonable fix? Peter's
> analysis seems good to me.
I really don't remember, it's not in my queue anymore, as I can't apply
[RFC] patches :(
On 02/24/2014 07:22 PM, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote:
> On Mon, Feb 24, 2014 at 10:40:32AM +0900, Mark Brown wrote:
>> On Mon, Dec 23, 2013 at 02:41:31PM +0200, Peter Ujfalusi wrote:
>>
>>> The proposed solution is to try the deferred queue once more when the last
>>> driver is asking for deferring and we had drivers probed while this last
>>> driver was probing.
>>
>> Greg, this patch doesn't seem to have been applied but it looks like
>> it's addressing a real issue and seems like a reasonable fix? Peter's
>> analysis seems good to me.
>
> I really don't remember, it's not in my queue anymore, as I can't apply
> [RFC] patches :(
Do you want me to resend as a patch?
--
P?ter