[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <YCOA2fr1CBSmepO7@kroah.com>
Date: Wed, 10 Feb 2021 07:44:41 +0100
From: Greg KH <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>
To: Dan Williams <dan.j.williams@...el.com>
Cc: Dave Jiang <dave.jiang@...el.com>,
Jacob Pan <jacob.jun.pan@...el.com>,
Dave Ertman <david.m.ertman@...el.com>,
"Rafael J. Wysocki" <rafael@...nel.org>,
Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] driver core: auxiliary bus: Fix calling stage for
auxiliary bus init
On Tue, Feb 09, 2021 at 12:01:06PM -0800, Dan Williams wrote:
> On Tue, Feb 9, 2021 at 11:16 AM Greg KH <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org> wrote:
> [..]
> > > diff --git a/drivers/base/auxiliary.c b/drivers/base/auxiliary.c
> > > index 8336535f1e11..53f93a506626 100644
> > > --- a/drivers/base/auxiliary.c
> > > +++ b/drivers/base/auxiliary.c
> > > @@ -270,7 +270,7 @@ static void __exit auxiliary_bus_exit(void)
> > > bus_unregister(&auxiliary_bus_type);
> > > }
> > >
> > > -module_init(auxiliary_bus_init);
> > > +subsys_initcall(auxiliary_bus_init);
> >
> > Ah, the linker priority dance. Are you _SURE_ this will solve this?
>
> All users are module_init() today so it will work.... today. The
> moment someone wants to use it in a built-in driver that uses
> subsystem_init() it will ultimately be chased into driver_init().
>
> > Why not just call this explicitly in driver_init() so that you know it
> > will be ok? Just like we do for the platform bus?
>
> Cross that bridge when / if it happens?
Let's fix it properly now please.
thanks,
greg k-h
Powered by blists - more mailing lists