[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <BANLkTinABWucqESqSRYJV+-frm6vDmpxFQ@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 19 May 2011 15:17:35 +0200
From: Linus Walleij <linus.walleij@...aro.org>
To: Barry Song <21cnbao@...il.com>
Cc: Linus Walleij <linus.walleij@...ricsson.com>,
Grant Likely <grant.likely@...retlab.ca>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org,
Lee Jones <lee.jones@...aro.org>,
Jonas Aaberg <jonas.aberg@...ricsson.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 02/10] mach-u300: rewrite gpio driver, move to drivers/gpio
On Thu, May 19, 2011 at 2:35 PM, Barry Song <21cnbao@...il.com> wrote:
> 2011/5/19 Linus Walleij <linus.walleij@...aro.org>:
>> On Thu, May 19, 2011 at 1:38 PM, Barry Song <21cnbao@...il.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> looks like the driver can't be a real module, is the module_exit
>>> suitable? it looks strange module_exit plays together with
>>> arch_initcall.
>>
>> It's a rather common design pattern in the kernel for early
>> platform drivers. Either the dependencies are resolved by the
>> different initlevels or they are resolved in probe order with
>> loadable modules. Module load will call all initlevels in order.
>>
>> It is not elegant but it is common.
>
> Linus, thanks for your reply. module_exit and related functions are
> really useless codes. but people have done that before, then we have
> no way except following.
> u300_gpio_exit never gets chance to run and when we disassemble
> vmlinux, u300_gpio_exit() function should be not in the final binary
> at all, just a symbol name is left.
I know. I can make the Kconfig options tristate if it makes you feel
better...
Linus Walleij
--
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