Messages in this thread | | | From | Andy Shevchenko <> | Date | Mon, 1 Aug 2022 13:34:47 +0200 | Subject | Re: [PATCH v2 01/10] mfd: intel_soc_pmic: Fix an error handling path in intel_soc_pmic_i2c_probe() |
| |
On Mon, Aug 1, 2022 at 12:53 PM Hans de Goede <hdegoede@redhat.com> wrote: > On 8/1/22 12:38, Andy Shevchenko wrote: > > On Mon, Aug 1, 2022 at 11:52 AM Hans de Goede <hdegoede@redhat.com> wrote: > >> On 8/1/22 11:29, Andy Shevchenko wrote: > >>> On Mon, Aug 1, 2022 at 11:14 AM Andy Shevchenko > >>> <andy.shevchenko@gmail.com> wrote: > >>>> On Mon, Aug 1, 2022 at 10:43 AM Hans de Goede <hdegoede@redhat.com> wrote: > >>>>> On 7/31/22 22:12, Andy Shevchenko wrote: > > > > ... > > > >>>>> Note alternatively we could just move the pwm_add_table() to just before the "return 0", > >>>>> there is no strict ordering between adding the mfd devices and the pwm_add_table() > >>>>> (the pwm device only becomes available after the pwm-driver has bound to the mfd > >>>>> instantiated platform device which happens later). > >>> > >>> Just to be sure... How is it guaranteed that that happens later? > >> > >> Ah you are right, it could happen immediately if the driver is builtin and > >> has already registered (if the PWM driver is a module, as it is on Fedora, > >> then the driver will only bind once the module is loaded). > >> > >> Regardless there are no ordering guarantees between the probe() function of > >> intel_soc_pmic and the consumer of the PWM device, so the consumer must > >> be prepared to deal with the lookup not being present yet when its probe() > >> function runs (*). > > > > Would be nice to have, but isn't it the issue with all lookup tables > > so far, e.g. consumers of GPIO ones are also affected the very same > > way? > > > >> *) ATM this is actually an unsolved problem and this works only because the PMIC > >> drivers are builtin and i915, which consumes the PWM for backlight control > >> is a module. Swapping the order does not impact this. > > > > Even so, I think we can't change order right now because the issue is > > much broader. > > Ok, lets go with the original v2 1/10 patch then. In that case, you > may add my:
Will do.
> Reviewed-by: Hans de Goede <hdegoede@redhat.com> > > to the original v2 1/10 patch.
Thanks!
-- With Best Regards, Andy Shevchenko
| |