[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <5438F1F6.4080300@huawei.com>
Date: Sat, 11 Oct 2014 17:01:42 +0800
From: He YunLei <heyunlei@...wei.com>
To: Tony Lindgren <tony@...mide.com>
CC: <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, <grant.likely@...aro.org>,
<robh+dt@...nel.org>, <wangbintian@...wei.com>,
<liguozhu@...ilicon.com>, <kong.kongxinwei@...ilicon.com>
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH] pinctrl: pinctrl-single.c: init pinctrl single at
arch_initcall time
On 2014/10/9 2:10, Tony Lindgren wrote:
> * He YunLei <heyunlei@...wei.com> [141007 18:43]:
>>
>> Thanks for your review and I am really appreciated it, but in our arm
>> platform, we haven't custom initcall levels for other drivers. Although
>> deferred probe helps other drivers to register well, we are also confused
>> for the issues of lots of pin request errors debug output while booting the
>> kernel. Besides, if the number is bigger than the limited number, whether
>> deferred probe can solve this problem.
>
> OK. Care to provide some examples where this happens on your
> platform?
>
> Note that we already have pinctrl very early in drivers/Makefile.
> What are the early users for pinctrl-single in your setup?
>
> Regards,
>
> Tony
>
> .
>
In our platform we use subsys_initcall in I2C, and fs_initcall in PMIC,
Both of them are early than pinctrl-single. Although they register well
with the aid of deferred probe, it's really confused us that pins
request deferred. Why can't we setup pinctrl-single earlier to reduce
these messages.
Regards
YunLei
--
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