[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <AANLkTinZ2+ocJCfUpT15Ow3J9XBa-8XWnVC3gDDJ7s-v@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 19 Oct 2010 23:02:37 +0200
From: Ohad Ben-Cohen <ohad@...ery.com>
To: Kevin Hilman <khilman@...prootsystems.com>
Cc: linux-omap@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org, akpm@...ux-foundation.org,
Greg KH <greg@...ah.com>, Tony Lindgren <tony@...mide.com>,
Benoit Cousson <b-cousson@...com>,
Grant Likely <grant.likely@...retlab.ca>,
Hari Kanigeri <h-kanigeri2@...com>, Suman Anna <s-anna@...com>,
Simon Que <sque@...com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 3/3] omap: add hwspinlock device
On Tue, Oct 19, 2010 at 7:03 PM, Kevin Hilman
<khilman@...prootsystems.com> wrote:
>> +postcore_initcall(hwspinlocks_init);
>
> Any reason this needs to be a postcore_initcall? Are there users of
> hwspinlocks this early in boot?
i2c-omap, which is subsys_initcall (the I2C bus is shared between the
A9 and the M3 on some OMAP4 boards).
And to allow early board code to reserve specific hwspinlock numbers
for predefined use-cases, we probably want to be before arch_initcall.
> The I2C Probaly subsys or even device_initcall
> is more appropriate here.
>
> I would've suspected that any users of hwspinlocks will be dependent on
> drivers for the other cores (e.g. syslink) which would likely be
> initialized much later.
>
> Kevin
>
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists