Received-SPF: pass (google.com: best guess record for domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 209.132.180.67 as permitted sender) client-ip=209.132.180.67;
Date:   Mon, 2 Sep 2019 18:47:24 +0200
From:   Greg KH <greg@kroah.com>
To:     Alan Stern <stern@rowland.harvard.edu>
Cc:     Julius Werner <jwerner@chromium.org>,
        Dan Williams <dcbw@redhat.com>,
        Kernel development list <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
        USB list <linux-usb@vger.kernel.org>,
        USB Storage list <usb-storage@lists.one-eyed-alien.net>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] usb: storage: Add ums-cros-aoa driver
Message-ID: <20190902164724.GA22619@kroah.com>
References: <CAODwPW8gTZ_2WEc9n=WJ2PEmQk2anTQYfwQ-898+kOq6wsjnZw@mail.gmail.com>
 <Pine.LNX.4.44L0.1908301337150.1459-100000@iolanthe.rowland.org>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <Pine.LNX.4.44L0.1908301337150.1459-100000@iolanthe.rowland.org>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.12.1 (2019-06-15)
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

On Fri, Aug 30, 2019 at 01:43:36PM -0400, Alan Stern wrote:
> > I could instead add a new sysfs node 'force_bind' to the driver core,
> > that would work like 'bind' except for skipping the
> > driver_match_device() call entirely and forcing a probe(). Do you
> > think that would be acceptable? Or is that too big of a hammer to make
> > available for all drivers in Linux? Maybe if I do the same thing but
> > only for usb drivers, or even only for the usb-storage driver
> > specifically, would that be acceptable?
> 
> This is a question for Greg.  The problem is that there may be drivers
> which can't handle being probed for devices they don't match.
> 
> Still, we ought to have a mechanism for doing manual but not automatic 
> matches.
> 
> Greg, any thoughts?

This should work just fine today.  Add a new device id to the "new_id"
file and then tell the driver to bind.  That's pretty much the same as a
"force_bind", right?

thanks,

greg k-h