[RFC 07/22] block: ide: call device_probe() after scanning

[Ilias Apalodimas]

On Mon, Oct 11, 2021 at 08:54:13AM -0600, Simon Glass wrote:
> Hi Takahiro,
> 
> On Sun, 10 Oct 2021 at 19:43, AKASHI Takahiro
> <takahiro.akashi at linaro.org> wrote:
> >
> > On Sun, Oct 10, 2021 at 08:14:13AM -0600, Simon Glass wrote:
> > > On Thu, 30 Sept 2021 at 23:03, AKASHI Takahiro
> > > <takahiro.akashi at linaro.org> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Every time an ide bus/port is scanned and a new device is detected,
> > > > we want to call device_probe() as it will give us a chance to run additional
> > > > post-processings for some purposes.
> > > >
> > > > In particular, support for creating partitions on a device will be added.
> > > >
> > > > Signed-off-by: AKASHI Takahiro <takahiro.akashi at linaro.org>
> > > > ---
> > > >  drivers/block/ide.c | 6 ++++++
> > > >  1 file changed, 6 insertions(+)
> > > >
> > >
> > > Reviewed-by: Simon Glass <sjg at chromium.org>
> > >
> > > I'm starting to wonder if you can create a function that does the
> > > probe and unbind? Something in the blk interface, perhaps? It would
> > > reduce the duplicated code and provide a standard way of bringing up a
> > > new device.
> >
> > That is exactly what Ilias suggested but I'm a bit declined to do :)
> >
> > Common 'scanning' code looks like:
> >   blk_create_devicef(... , &dev);
> >   desc = dev_get_uclass_data(dev);
> >   initialize some members in desc as well as device-specific info --- (A)
> >     (now dev can be accessible.)
> >   ret = device_probe(dev);
> >   if (ret) {
> >      de-initialize *dev*  --- (B)
> >      device_unbind()
> >   }
> >
> > Basically (B) is supposed to undo (A) which may or may not exist,
> > depending on types of block devices.
> >
> > So I'm not 100% sure that a combination of device_probe() and device_unbind()
> > will fit to all the device types.
> > (The only cases that I have noticed are fsl_sata.c and sata_sil.c. Both
> > have their own xxx_unbind_device(), but they simply call device_remove() and
> > device_unbind(), though. So no worry?)
> 
> Yes I agree it would be a very strange function. But at least it would
> have the benefit of grouping the code together under a particular
> name, something like blk_back_out_bind(), but that's not a good
> name....it just feels like this might get refactored in the future and
> having the code in one place might be handy.

naming is hard! try_device_probe() maybe?

Cheers
/Ilias
> 
> Regards,
> Simon