Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1754136Ab3COLTR (ORCPT ); Fri, 15 Mar 2013 07:19:17 -0400 Received: from mail-ob0-f178.google.com ([209.85.214.178]:65114 "EHLO mail-ob0-f178.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1753561Ab3COLTP (ORCPT ); Fri, 15 Mar 2013 07:19:15 -0400 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <20130314140631.GM1906@pengutronix.de> References: <1363266691-15757-1-git-send-email-fabio.porcedda@gmail.com> <1363266691-15757-12-git-send-email-fabio.porcedda@gmail.com> <201303141358.05616.arnd@arndb.de> <20130314140631.GM1906@pengutronix.de> From: Fabio Porcedda Date: Fri, 15 Mar 2013 12:18:53 +0100 Message-ID: Subject: Re: [PATCH 10/10] drivers: misc: use module_platform_driver_probe() To: Sascha Hauer Cc: Arnd Bergmann , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org, linux-media , linux-ide , lm-sensors , linux-input , linux-fbdev , Greg Kroah-Hartman , H Hartley Sweeten , Hans-Christian Egtvedt , Grant Likely Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 2363 Lines: 52 On Thu, Mar 14, 2013 at 3:06 PM, Sascha Hauer wrote: > On Thu, Mar 14, 2013 at 01:58:05PM +0000, Arnd Bergmann wrote: >> On Thursday 14 March 2013, Fabio Porcedda wrote: >> > This patch converts the drivers to use the >> > module_platform_driver_probe() macro which makes the code smaller and >> > a bit simpler. >> > >> > Signed-off-by: Fabio Porcedda >> > Cc: Greg Kroah-Hartman >> > Cc: Arnd Bergmann >> > --- >> > drivers/misc/atmel_pwm.c | 12 +----------- >> > drivers/misc/ep93xx_pwm.c | 13 +------------ >> > 2 files changed, 2 insertions(+), 23 deletions(-) >> >> The patch itself seems fine, but there are two issues around it: >> >> * The PWM drivers should really get moved to drivers/pwm and converted to the new >> PWM subsystem. I don't know if Hartley or Hans-Christian have plans to do >> that already. >> >> * Regarding the use of module_platform_driver_probe, I'm a little worried about >> the interactions with deferred probing. I don't think there are any regressions, >> but we should probably make people aware that one cannot return -EPROBE_DEFER >> from a platform_driver_probe function. The use of module_platform_driver_probe() doesn't change anything about that, it's exactly the same thing as using "return platform_driver_probe()". I'm right or I'm missing something? Maybe are you just speaking about the misuse of "platform_driver_probe"? Best regards Fabio Porcedda > > I'm worried about this aswell. I think platform_driver_probe shouldn't > be used anymore. Even if a driver does not explicitly make use of > -EPROBE_DEFER, it leaks in very quickly if a driver for example uses a > regulator and just returns the error value from regulator_get. > Sascha > > -- > Pengutronix e.K. | | > Industrial Linux Solutions | http://www.pengutronix.de/ | > Peiner Str. 6-8, 31137 Hildesheim, Germany | Phone: +49-5121-206917-0 | > Amtsgericht Hildesheim, HRA 2686 | Fax: +49-5121-206917-5555 | -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/