On Mon, Feb 10, 2014 at 01:53:08PM +0100, Thierry Reding wrote:
On Fri, Feb 07, 2014 at 04:55:00PM +0100, Jean-Francois Moine wrote:
Some simple components don't need to do any specific action on bind to / unbind from a master component.
This patch permits such components to omit the bind/unbind operations.
Signed-off-by: Jean-Francois Moine moinejf@free.fr
drivers/base/component.c | 9 +++++++-- 1 file changed, 7 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
diff --git a/drivers/base/component.c b/drivers/base/component.c index c53efe6..0a39d7a 100644 --- a/drivers/base/component.c +++ b/drivers/base/component.c @@ -225,7 +225,8 @@ static void component_unbind(struct component *component, { WARN_ON(!component->bound);
- component->ops->unbind(component->dev, master->dev, data);
- if (component->ops)
component->ops->unbind(component->dev, master->dev, data);This doesn't actually do what the commit message says. This makes component->ops optional, not component->ops->unbind().
A more correct check would be:
if (component->ops && component->ops->unbind)
component->bound = false;
/* Release all resources claimed in the binding of this component */ @@ -274,7 +275,11 @@ static int component_bind(struct component *component, struct master *master, dev_dbg(master->dev, "binding %s (ops %ps)\n", dev_name(component->dev), component->ops);
- ret = component->ops->bind(component->dev, master->dev, data);
- if (component->ops)
ret = component->ops->bind(component->dev, master->dev, data);Same here.
I've NAK'd these patches already - I believe they're based on a mis-understanding of how this should be used. I believe Jean-Francois has only looked at the core, rather than looking at the imx-drm example it was posted with in an attempt to understand it.
Omitting the component bind operations is absurd because it makes the component code completely pointless, since there is then no way to control the sequencing of driver initialisation - something which is one of the primary reasons for this code existing in the first place.