On 14-01-20, 10:01, Pierre-Louis Bossart wrote:
I am quoting the code in patch, which i pointed in my first reply!
On 17-12-19, 15:03, Pierre-Louis Bossart wrote:
diff --git a/drivers/soundwire/intel_init.c b/drivers/soundwire/intel_init.c index 4b769409f6f8..42f7ae034bea 100644 --- a/drivers/soundwire/intel_init.c
This is intel specific file...
+++ b/drivers/soundwire/intel_init.c
snip ...
+static struct sdw_intel_ctx +*sdw_intel_probe_controller(struct sdw_intel_res *res)
this is intel driver, intel function!
link->pdev = pdev;link++;
/* let the SoundWire master driver to its probe */md->driver->probe(md, link);^^^^^^which does this... calls a probe()!
And my first reply was:
/* let the SoundWire master driver to its probe */md->driver->probe(md, link);So you are invoking driver probe here.. That is typically role of driver core to do that.. If we need that, make driver core do that for you!
I rest my case!
I think you are too focused on the probe case and not realizing the extensions suggested by this patchset. A "driver" is not limited to 'probe' and 'remove' cases.
As mentioned since mid-September, there is a need for an initialization of software/kernel structures (which I called probe but should have been called init really), and a second step where the hardware is actually configured -
I find it amusing that a person whom i admired for strict use of terms can get this differently!
A rename away from probe will certainly be very helpful as you would also agree that terms 'probe' and 'remove' have a very special meaning in kernel, so let us avoid these