[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <4673431.OTm9MABNvH@wuerfel>
Date: Tue, 16 Dec 2014 10:54:29 +0100
From: Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>
To: linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org
Cc: Stanimir Varbanov <svarbanov@...sol.com>,
Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@....com>,
devicetree@...r.kernel.org, Russell King <linux@....linux.org.uk>,
linux-arm-msm@...r.kernel.org, linux-pci@...r.kernel.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
Kishon Vijay Abraham I <kishon@...com>,
Bjorn Helgaas <bhelgaas@...gle.com>,
Rob Herring <robh+dt@...nel.org>,
Kumar Gala <galak@...eaurora.org>,
Grant Likely <grant.likely@...aro.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 4/5] PCI: qcom: Add Qualcomm PCIe controller driver
On Tuesday 16 December 2014 11:43:12 Stanimir Varbanov wrote:
> >> +static int __init qcom_pcie_probe(struct platform_device *pdev)
> >> +{
> >
> > I think it's a bug to mark this function as __init. It breaks
> > deferred probing and detaching/reattaching the device trough sysfs.
> >
>
> My bad, I have tried to avoid mismatch section warnings came up from
> dw_pcie_host_init() which is annotated as __init. Do you think we need
> to remove __init from dw_pcie_host_init() declaration and fix the
> drivers accordingly?
Yes, that's probably best. Initially, it was ok because all front-ends
of the dw-pcie driver were using module_platform_probe(), but that
is not the case any more, so now at least keystone, layerscape and
spear13xx are broken, and I think it's safer to change dw_pcie_host_init
than to rely on everyone using module_platform_probe() correctly.
Arnd
--
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