On Thu, Nov 15, 2012 at 7:23 PM, Stephen Warren <swar...@wwwdotorg.org> wrote: > On 11/15/2012 07:03 AM, Linus Walleij wrote:
>> OK I'll have to come up with a patch to the device core >> instead... it'll be much simpler anyway and if both of you guys >> can back it I guess Greg might be OK with it too. > > I did have one thought here; how will this interact with hogs? If a > device's pinctrl configuration must be pinctrl_get()'d before the device > is probed, then a pinctrl device with hogs will never get probed because > it won't be registered to provide the pinctrl node parsing. Catch 22 :-( Yeah we need to come up with something there. > Solutions might include: > > a) Some special case where if the pinctrl driver only can't probe due to > missing pinctrl from its own node, don't defer the probe, but defer the > pinctrl_get(). > > b) Separate out DT node parsing from device instantiation, so that the > driver can always parse the DT, without needing the context of a > specific pinctrl device to do so. But this mechanism can't be device tree-specific, we have some of olschool pdata users and ACPI probing around the corner. I will likely just cook up something like seeing if the dev_name() for provider and consumer is the same and in that case avoid deferral. Oh well, I'll try to actually code this now... Yours, Linus Walleij -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
