Re: [PATCH 2/5] drivercore: Add driver probe deferral mechanism

[Ming Lei]

On Tue, Oct 11, 2011 at 1:37 AM, Andrei Warkentin <awarkentin@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> Hi,
>
> ----- Original Message -----
>> From: "Greg KH" <greg@xxxxxxxxx>
>> To: "Josh Triplett" <josh@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>> Cc: "G, Manjunath Kondaiah" <manjugk@xxxxxx>, linux-arm-kernel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, "Grant Likely"
>> <grant.likely@xxxxxxxxxxxx>, linux-omap@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, linux-mmc@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, linux-kernel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx,
>> "Dilan Lee" <dilee@xxxxxxxxxx>, "Mark Brown" <broonie@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, Manjunath@xxxxxxxxx
>> Sent: Saturday, October 8, 2011 11:55:02 AM
>> Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/5] drivercore: Add driver probe deferral mechanism
>>
>
> I'm a bit of a fly on the wall here, but I'm curious how this impacts suspend/resume.
> device_initialize->device_pm_init are called from device_register, so certainly this
> patch doesn't also ensure that the PM ordering matches probe ordering, which is bound
> to break suspend, right? Was this ever tested with the OMAP target? Shouldn't the

Inside device_add(), device_pm_add is called before bus_probe_device,
so the patch can't change the device order in pm list, and just change
the driver probe order.

> PM change be also part of this patch set? I don't see why you would want to have this in
> without the PM changes.
>


thanks,
-- 
Ming Lei
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/