lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2020]   [Mar]   [27]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
SubjectRe: [PATCH] Add documentation on meaning of -EPROBE_DEFER
From
Date


On 27/03/2020 18:10, Saravana Kannan wrote:
> On Fri, Mar 27, 2020 at 10:01 AM Grant Likely <grant.likely@arm.com> wrote:
>>
>> Add a bit of documentation on what it means when a driver .probe() hook
>> returns the -EPROBE_DEFER error code, including the limitation that
>> -EPROBE_DEFER should be returned as early as possible, before the driver
>> starts to register child devices.
>>
>> Also: minor markup fixes in the same file
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Grant Likely <grant.likely@arm.com>
>> Cc: Jonathan Corbet <corbet@lwn.net>
>> Cc: Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org>
>> Cc: Saravana Kannan <saravanak@google.com>
>> Cc: Andy Shevchenko <andriy.shevchenko@linux.intel.com>
>> ---
>> .../driver-api/driver-model/driver.rst | 32 ++++++++++++++++---
>> 1 file changed, 27 insertions(+), 5 deletions(-)
>>
>> diff --git a/Documentation/driver-api/driver-model/driver.rst b/Documentation/driver-api/driver-model/driver.rst
>> index baa6a85c8287..63057d9bc8a6 100644
>> --- a/Documentation/driver-api/driver-model/driver.rst
>> +++ b/Documentation/driver-api/driver-model/driver.rst
>> @@ -4,7 +4,6 @@ Device Drivers
>>
>> See the kerneldoc for the struct device_driver.
>>
>> -
>> Allocation
>> ~~~~~~~~~~
>>
>> @@ -167,9 +166,26 @@ the driver to that device.
>>
>> A driver's probe() may return a negative errno value to indicate that
>> the driver did not bind to this device, in which case it should have
>> -released all resources it allocated::
>> +released all resources it allocated.
>> +
>> +Optionally, probe() may return -EPROBE_DEFER if the driver depends on
>> +resources that are not yet available (e.g., supplied by a driver that
>> +hasn't initialized yet). The driver core will put the device onto the
>> +deferred probe list and will try to call it again later. If a driver
>> +must defer, it should return -EPROBE_DEFER as early as possible to
>> +reduce the amount of time spent on setup work that will need to be
>> +unwound and reexecuted at a later time.
>> +
>> +.. warning::
>> + -EPROBE_DEFER must not be returned if probe() has already created
>> + child devices, even if those child devices are removed again
>> + in a cleanup path. If -EPROBE_DEFER is returned after a child
>> + device has been registered, it may result in an infinite loop of
>> + .probe() calls to the same driver.
>
> The infinite loop is a current implementation behavior. Not an
> intentional choice. So, maybe we can say the behavior is undefined
> instead?

If you feel strongly about it, but I don't have any problem with
documenting it as the current implementation behaviour, and then
changing the text if that ever changes.

g.

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2020-03-28 00:26    [W:0.105 / U:5.996 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site