[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <Yyt5LSxSz+6QeWF1@zn.tnic>
Date: Wed, 21 Sep 2022 22:50:53 +0200
From: Borislav Petkov <bp@...e.de>
To: "Limonciello, Mario" <mario.limonciello@....com>
Cc: Jan Dąbroś <jsd@...ihalf.com>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-i2c@...r.kernel.org,
jarkko.nikula@...ux.intel.com, andriy.shevchenko@...ux.intel.com,
wsa@...nel.org, rrangel@...omium.org, upstream@...ihalf.com,
Muralidhara M K <muralimk@....com>,
Naveen Krishna Chatradhi <nchatrad@....com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH -next 1/2] i2c: designware: Switch from using MMIO access
to SMN access
On Wed, Sep 21, 2022 at 03:19:26PM -0500, Limonciello, Mario wrote:
> Jan mentioned this in the commit message:
>
> > The function which registers i2c-designware-platdrv is a
> > subsys_initcall that is executed before fs_initcall (when enumeration > of
> NB descriptors occurs).
>
> So if it's not exported again, then it means that we somehow
> need to get i2c-designware-platdrv to register earlier too.
So I have this there:
/* This has to go after the PCI subsystem */
fs_initcall(init_amd_nbs);
as I need PCI. It itself does
arch_initcall(pci_arch_init);
so I guess init_amd_nbs() could be a subsys_initcall...
Or why is
subsys_initcall(dw_i2c_init_driver);
a subsys initcall in the first place?
Looking at
104522806a7d ("i2c: designware: dw_i2c_init_driver as subsys initcall")
I don't see a particular reason why it should be a subsys_initcall...
In any case, this should be fixed without an export which was crap in
the first place.
Hm.
--
Regards/Gruss,
Boris.
SUSE Software Solutions Germany GmbH
GF: Ivo Totev, Andrew Myers, Andrew McDonald, Martje Boudien Moerman
(HRB 36809, AG Nürnberg)
Powered by blists - more mailing lists