On Wed, 4 Aug 2010, Sascha Hauer wrote: > On Wed, Aug 04, 2010 at 01:01:34AM +0200, Guennadi Liakhovetski wrote: > > On Tue, 3 Aug 2010, Michael Grzeschik wrote: > > > > > On Tue, Aug 03, 2010 at 08:22:13PM +0200, Guennadi Liakhovetski wrote: > > > > On Tue, 3 Aug 2010, Michael Grzeschik wrote: > > > > > > > > > change this driver back to register and probe, since some platforms > > > > > first have to initialize an already registered power regulator to > > > > > switch > > > > > on the camera. > > > > > > > > Sorry, don't see a difference. Can you give an example of two call > > > > sequences, where this change changes the behaviour? > > > > > > > > > > Yes, when you look at the today posted patch [1] you find the function > > > pcm970_baseboard_init_late as an late_initcall. It uses an already > > > registred regulator device to turn on the power of the camera before the > > > cameras device registration. > > > > > > [1] [PATCH 1/2] ARM: i.MX27 pcm970: Add camera support > > > http://lists.infradead.org/pipermail/linux-arm-kernel/2010-August/022317.html > > > > Sorry again, still don't understand. What I mean is the following: take > > two cases - before and after your patch. What is the difference? As far as > > I know, the difference between platform_driver_probe() and > > platform_driver_register() is just that the probe method gets discarded in > > an __init section, which is suitable for non hotpluggable devices. I don't > > know what the difference this should make for call order. So, that's what > > I am asking about. Can you explain, how this patch changes the call order > > in your case? Can you tell, that in the unpatches case the probe is called > > at that moment, and in the patched case it is called at a different point > > of time and that fixes the problem. > > > The following is above platform_driver_probe: > > * Use this instead of platform_driver_register() when you know the device > * is not hotpluggable and has already been registered, and you want to > * remove its run-once probe() infrastructure from memory after the > * driver has bound to the device. > > So platform_driver_probe will only call the probe function when the device > is already there when this function runs. This is not the case on our board. > We have to register the camera in late_initcall (to make sure the needed > regulators are already there). During late_initcall time the > platform_driver_probe has already run.
Ok, now I see. I missed the key-phrase: "before the cameras device registration." Ok, in this case, it's certainly a valid reason for the change. Just one more question: wouldn't calling pcm970_baseboard_init_late() from device_initcall fix the problem without requiring to change the driver? > I don't really like the trend to platform_driver_probe, because this > makes cases like camera needs regulator which in turn needs SPI even > more complicated. Well, you can always change to using the platform_driver_register() if platform_driver_probe() causes problems, otherwise it does have its advantages, as described in the comment, you quoted above. Thanks Guennadi --- Guennadi Liakhovetski, Ph.D. Freelance Open-Source Software Developer http://www.open-technology.de/ -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-media" in the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
