[U-Boot] [Driver Model] post_bind() and pre_unbind() handler

[Masahiro YAMADA]

Hi Simon,


2014-12-03 2:47 GMT+09:00 Simon Glass <sjg at chromium.org>:
> Hi Masahiro,
>
> On 1 December 2014 at 22:31, Masahiro Yamada <yamada.m at jp.panasonic.com> wrote:
>> Hi Simon,
>>
>>
>> I have a question about handlers of struct uclass_driver.
>>
>>
>> When binding a device,
>>  "uc->uc_drv->post_bind()"  is called *before*  "drv->bind()",
>> so  the name "pre_bind()" is more suitable than "post_bind()", isn't it?
>>
>
> The uclass post_bind() is called after the device is bound to the
> uclass. The device's bind() call is made last, so that it can do any
> last-minute adjustments, and can rely on any uclass setup having
> occurred.
>
> The 'bind' step does not rely on calling the device's bind(). In fact
> the bind has already happened. This is just offering the device an
> opportunity to do a little after-processing.


I thought that the 'bind' step meant calling the drv->bind() method.
In your explanation, it rather means manipulation of struct list_head etc.

If so, "post_" is redundant, maybe?

We have two handlers to give side effects of the 'bind' step.
The global one is uc->uc_drv->bind() and
the driver-specific one is drv->bind().



>>
>> Likewise, when unbinding a device,
>> "uc->uc_drv->pre_unbind()" is called *after*  "drv->unbind()"
>> so  the name "post_unbind()" is more suitable than "pre_unbind()".
>>
>
> Similar to the above.
>
>>
>>
>> I think  pre_  and post_  is opposite here, and it looks confusing to me.
>>
>> Am I misunderstanding something?
>
> Do you have a need to change the ordering?

No.  The order should be kept as it is, I think.

Perhaps it is less confusing to rename the handlers of uclass driver, but
I am not sure if it is a good reason for the change.


-- 
Best Regards
Masahiro Yamada