On Mon, Sep 23, 2013 at 09:25:53PM +0200, Linus Walleij wrote: > On Mon, Sep 16, 2013 at 10:32 AM, Thierry Reding > <thierry.reding@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > With the driver core now resolving interrupt references at probe time, > > it is no longer necessary to force explicit probe ordering using > > initcalls. > > > > Signed-off-by: Thierry Reding <treding@xxxxxxxxxx> > > --- > > Note that there are potentially many more drivers that can be switched > > to the generic module_*_driver() interfaces now that interrupts can be > > resolved later and deferred probe should be able to handle all the > > ordering issues. > > Let me see if I get this right: so this would be all GPIO/pinctrl > drivers which are probed exclusively from the device tree > so anything that depends explicitly on CONFIG_OF would > be a candidate? It includes all interrupt providers that are probed from the device tree. I'm not sure exactly what the situation is regarding DT vs non-DT, but if my memory serves me well, with non-DT setups interrupts need to be hard-coded in the board support code. Therefore I don't think the usefulness is limited to drivers that are exclusively probed from device tree, but rather any interrupt providing driver that can be probed from device tree. > I think we have a bit of a problem that some drivers depend > only on a certain arch or compiles directly for a certain arch > without any specific Kconfig option so that this may be a > bit hard to spot, so we should keep an eye out for this > once this probing scheme is in place. Yes, it certainly needs to be decided on a case by case basis. There might be other factors that prevent a driver from being a proper module driver. Thierry
Attachment:
pgpafmUnbHs9P.pgp
Description: PGP signature
