On Wednesday, February 13, 2013 08:38:04 AM Dirk Brandewie wrote: > Hi Dave, > > On 02/12/2013 01:49 PM, Dave Jones wrote: > > On Wed, Feb 06, 2013 at 09:02:07AM -0800, dirk.brandewie@xxxxxxxxx wrote: > > > > Won't you also need to patch drivers/cpufreq/acpi-cpufreq.c to not load > > on the processors that you want this driver to run on ? > > > > Dave > > > > For the case where both are built-in the load order works my driver uses > device_initcall() and acpi_cpufreq uses late_initcall(). > > For the case where both are a module (which I was sure I tested) you are right > I will have to do something. > > For now I propose to make my driver built-in only while I sort out the right > solution for the module build. Does this seem reasonable to everyone? Well, I've been saying I think your driver should be non-modular from the start. :-) May I ask for a kernel command line switch to prevent it from registering if the user doesn't actually want it, though, if it's going to be non-modular? Rafael -- I speak only for myself. Rafael J. Wysocki, Intel Open Source Technology Center. -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe cpufreq" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
