| Message ID | 1400966481-14131-4-git-send-email-sjg@chromium.org |
|---|---|
| State | RFC |
| Headers | show |
On Saturday, May 24, 2014 at 11:21:02 PM, Simon Glass wrote: > The root device should be probed just like any other device. The effect of > this is to mark the device as activated, so that it can be removed (along > with its children) if required. > > Signed-off-by: Simon Glass <sjg@chromium.org> > --- > > drivers/core/root.c | 3 +++ > test/dm/core.c | 2 +- > 2 files changed, 4 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-) > > diff --git a/drivers/core/root.c b/drivers/core/root.c > index 4427b81..9fff164 100644 > --- a/drivers/core/root.c > +++ b/drivers/core/root.c > @@ -48,6 +48,9 @@ int dm_init(void) > ret = device_bind_by_name(NULL, &root_info, &DM_ROOT()); Off-topic: This &DM_ROOT() above looks a little suspicious, don't you think? [...] Acked-by: Marek Vasut <marex@denx.de> Best regards, Marek Vasut
Hi Marek, On 1 June 2014 11:33, Marek Vasut <marex@denx.de> wrote: > On Saturday, May 24, 2014 at 11:21:02 PM, Simon Glass wrote: >> The root device should be probed just like any other device. The effect of >> this is to mark the device as activated, so that it can be removed (along >> with its children) if required. >> >> Signed-off-by: Simon Glass <sjg@chromium.org> >> --- >> >> drivers/core/root.c | 3 +++ >> test/dm/core.c | 2 +- >> 2 files changed, 4 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-) >> >> diff --git a/drivers/core/root.c b/drivers/core/root.c >> index 4427b81..9fff164 100644 >> --- a/drivers/core/root.c >> +++ b/drivers/core/root.c >> @@ -48,6 +48,9 @@ int dm_init(void) >> ret = device_bind_by_name(NULL, &root_info, &DM_ROOT()); > > Off-topic: This &DM_ROOT() above looks a little suspicious, don't you think? Yes. I wonder if it should not be written as a function? Regards, Simon
On Tuesday, June 03, 2014 at 03:59:49 AM, Simon Glass wrote: > Hi Marek, > > On 1 June 2014 11:33, Marek Vasut <marex@denx.de> wrote: > > On Saturday, May 24, 2014 at 11:21:02 PM, Simon Glass wrote: > >> The root device should be probed just like any other device. The effect > >> of this is to mark the device as activated, so that it can be removed > >> (along with its children) if required. > >> > >> Signed-off-by: Simon Glass <sjg@chromium.org> > >> --- > >> > >> drivers/core/root.c | 3 +++ > >> test/dm/core.c | 2 +- > >> 2 files changed, 4 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-) > >> > >> diff --git a/drivers/core/root.c b/drivers/core/root.c > >> index 4427b81..9fff164 100644 > >> --- a/drivers/core/root.c > >> +++ b/drivers/core/root.c > >> @@ -48,6 +48,9 @@ int dm_init(void) > >> > >> ret = device_bind_by_name(NULL, &root_info, &DM_ROOT()); > > > > Off-topic: This &DM_ROOT() above looks a little suspicious, don't you > > think? > > Yes. I wonder if it should not be written as a function? That'd be a good start. I cannot even find it's definition anywhere :-/ Best regards, Marek Vasut
diff --git a/drivers/core/root.c b/drivers/core/root.c index 4427b81..9fff164 100644 --- a/drivers/core/root.c +++ b/drivers/core/root.c @@ -48,6 +48,9 @@ int dm_init(void) ret = device_bind_by_name(NULL, &root_info, &DM_ROOT()); if (ret) return ret; + ret = device_probe(DM_ROOT()); + if (ret) + return ret; return 0; } diff --git a/test/dm/core.c b/test/dm/core.c index 14a57c3..a889fad 100644 --- a/test/dm/core.c +++ b/test/dm/core.c @@ -106,7 +106,7 @@ static int dm_test_autoprobe(struct dm_test_state *dms) ut_asserteq(0, dm_testdrv_op_count[DM_TEST_OP_POST_PROBE]); /* The root device should not be activated until needed */ - ut_assert(!(dms->root->flags & DM_FLAG_ACTIVATED)); + ut_assert(dms->root->flags & DM_FLAG_ACTIVATED); /* * We should be able to find the three test devices, and they should
The root device should be probed just like any other device. The effect of this is to mark the device as activated, so that it can be removed (along with its children) if required. Signed-off-by: Simon Glass <sjg@chromium.org> --- drivers/core/root.c | 3 +++ test/dm/core.c | 2 +- 2 files changed, 4 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)