[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CAJZ5v0iVOmkgU5tBZzocTgPjcAQzY8mFrzBiMJ_kmHvh3Lhgww@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 25 Apr 2017 13:03:03 +0200
From: "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rafael@...nel.org>
To: Sinan Kaya <okaya@...eaurora.org>
Cc: "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rafael@...nel.org>,
ACPI Devel Maling List <linux-acpi@...r.kernel.org>,
Timur Tabi <timur@...eaurora.org>,
"Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@...ysocki.net>,
Len Brown <lenb@...nel.org>,
Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] ACPI / GED: use late init to allow other drivers init
On Tue, Apr 25, 2017 at 3:43 AM, Sinan Kaya <okaya@...eaurora.org> wrote:
>
>> My point is that nothing guarantees a specific ordering or timing of
>> module loading in general, so moving stuff to different initcall
>> levels does not really help 100% of the time.
>>
>
> Are you talking about init vs. probe in general?
Yes.
Generally speaking, if the initialization of built-in code depends on
a loadable module to be present, it has to explicitly wait for that
module to advertise itself, this way or another, or it has to poll.
> Sorry, I'm trying to decode what you mean to see if there is some other behavior
> that I'm not aware of in ACPI.
Sorry for being unclear.
Thanks,
Rafael
Powered by blists - more mailing lists