Thread (29 messages) 29 messages, 10 authors, 2018-05-30

[PATCH v2 1/8] driver core: make deferring probe after init optional

From: gregkh@linuxfoundation.org (Greg Kroah-Hartman)
Date: 2018-05-24 19:00:52
Also in: linux-devicetree, lkml

On Thu, May 24, 2018 at 12:50:17PM -0500, Rob Herring wrote:
quoted hunk ↗ jump to hunk
Deferred probe will currently wait forever on dependent devices to probe,
but sometimes a driver will never exist. It's also not always critical for
a driver to exist. Platforms can rely on default configuration from the
bootloader or reset defaults for things such as pinctrl and power domains.
This is often the case with initial platform support until various drivers
get enabled. There's at least 2 scenarios where deferred probe can render
a platform broken. Both involve using a DT which has more devices and
dependencies than the kernel supports. The 1st case is a driver may be
disabled in the kernel config. The 2nd case is the kernel version may
simply not have the dependent driver. This can happen if using a newer DT
(provided by firmware perhaps) with a stable kernel version.

Subsystems or drivers may opt-in to this behavior by calling
driver_deferred_probe_check_init_done() instead of just returning
-EPROBE_DEFER. They may use additional information from DT or kernel's
config to decide whether to continue to defer probe or not.

Cc: Alexander Graf <redacted>
Signed-off-by: Rob Herring <robh@kernel.org>
---
 drivers/base/dd.c      | 17 +++++++++++++++++
 include/linux/device.h |  2 ++
 2 files changed, 19 insertions(+)
diff --git a/drivers/base/dd.c b/drivers/base/dd.c
index c9f54089429b..d6034718da6f 100644
--- a/drivers/base/dd.c
+++ b/drivers/base/dd.c
@@ -226,6 +226,16 @@ void device_unblock_probing(void)
 	driver_deferred_probe_trigger();
 }
 
+int driver_deferred_probe_check_init_done(struct device *dev, bool optional)
+{
+	if (optional && initcalls_done) {
Wait, what's the "optional" mess here?

The caller knows this value, so why do you need to even pass it in here?

And bool values that are not obvious are horrid.  I had to go look this
up when reading the later patches that just passed "true" in this
variable as I had no idea what that meant.

So as-is, no, this isn't ok, sorry.

And at the least, this needs some kerneldoc to explain it :)

thanks,

greg k-h
Keyboard shortcuts
hback out one level
jnext message in thread
kprevious message in thread
ldrill in
Escclose help / fold thread tree
?toggle this help