[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <52498A7E.8080606@linaro.org>
Date: Mon, 30 Sep 2013 22:28:14 +0800
From: Hanjun Guo <hanjun.guo@...aro.org>
To: Wolfram Sang <wsa@...-dreams.de>
CC: Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
Mark Brown <broonie@...nel.org>,
"Rafael J. Wysocki" <rafael.j.wysocki@...el.com>,
Fabio Porcedda <fabio.porcedda@...il.com>,
Grant Likely <grant.likely@...aro.org>,
Linus Walleij <linus.walleij@...aro.org>,
Libo Chen <libo.chen@...wei.com>, linux-i2c@...r.kernel.org,
linux-spi@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
patches@...aro.org, linaro-kernel@...ts.linaro.org,
linaro-acpi@...ts.linaro.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/4] driver core: introduce helper macro initcall_driver()
On 2013年09月30日 18:15, Wolfram Sang wrote:
> On Mon, Sep 30, 2013 at 01:13:52PM +0800, Hanjun Guo wrote:
>> For some devices especially on platform/I2C/SPI bus, they want to
>> be initialized earlier than other devices, so the driver use initcall
>> such as subsys_initcall to make this device initialize earlier.
> And this is something we want to get rid of in favor of deferred
> probing.
>
>> But for those drivers, lots of them just do nothing special in
>> xxx_initcall/exit, so introduce a helper macro initcall_driver() to
>> eliminate lots of boilerplate just like module_driver() did.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Hanjun Guo <hanjun.guo@...aro.org>
> So, NACK because using some *_initcall in drivers should not be
> encouraged.
Ok, got it. I agree with you, *_initcall in module driver is really
confusing people :)
Thanks
Hanjun
>
> Thanks,
>
> Wolfram
>
--
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