[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <DB3PR0402MB391645F95B19B2438736B546F5800@DB3PR0402MB3916.eurprd04.prod.outlook.com>
Date: Thu, 11 Jun 2020 08:48:40 +0000
From: Anson Huang <anson.huang@....com>
To: Daniel Baluta <daniel.baluta@....com>,
Aisheng Dong <aisheng.dong@....com>,
"festevam@...il.com" <festevam@...il.com>,
"shawnguo@...nel.org" <shawnguo@...nel.org>,
"stefan@...er.ch" <stefan@...er.ch>,
"kernel@...gutronix.de" <kernel@...gutronix.de>,
"linus.walleij@...aro.org" <linus.walleij@...aro.org>,
"s.hauer@...gutronix.de" <s.hauer@...gutronix.de>,
"linux-gpio@...r.kernel.org" <linux-gpio@...r.kernel.org>,
"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
"linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org"
<linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org>
CC: dl-linux-imx <linux-imx@....com>
Subject: RE: [PATCH V4 4/9] pinctrl: imx8mn: Support building as module
Hi, Daniel
> Subject: Re: [PATCH V4 4/9] pinctrl: imx8mn: Support building as module
>
> Maybe this is obvious but I would really like to see an explanation
>
> of why we are switching from arch_initcall to platform_init.
>
> Commit message act as documentation for the reviewers.
Yes, I noticed this, and it looks like unnecessary change, and I just replied in
mail that I will change it back to arch_initcall() in order to make sure nothing
changed for built-in config. Below is what I replied in cover-letter mail:
" I will keep the arch_initcall() there in next version patch series, it can make sure
the change does NOT impact built-in config. For module build, the arch_initcall()
will be same as module_init(), user needs to insmod the .ko with correct sequence."
Thanks,
Anson
Powered by blists - more mailing lists