Hi Geert, On Monday 26 October 2015 09:03:44 Geert Uytterhoeven wrote: > On Mon, Oct 26, 2015 at 3:25 AM, Laurent Pinchart wrote: > > On Saturday 24 October 2015 19:34:03 Geert Uytterhoeven wrote: > >> On Sat, Oct 24, 2015 at 3:10 AM, Stephen Boyd wrote: > >> > On 10/22, Geert Uytterhoeven wrote: > >> >> As I want to have as much clock data/code __init as possible (think > >> >> multi-platform kernels --- pinmux data is a disaster here), I have to > >> >> use platform_driver_probe(). > > > > That sounds like an __init issue, doesn't it ? The CPG driver will always > > be builtin and probed during the init process, what's preventing us from > > using normal driver probing ? > > When using platform_driver_register(), the tables cannot be __init, as that > would cause a section type mismatch. Remember, the driver core handles > platform devices appearing later, so .probe() should continue to be > available. Of course, my bad. > Note: in theory it should be possible to compile the CPG/MSSR driver as a > module, and have the module in your initramfs. But I don't think anyone > really wants to do that? I don't think we should allow that, no. > >> For new SoCs like r8a7795 we can probably just make it a real platform > >> driver, and make sure the irqc node is located after the cpg node in the > >> .dtsi. > > > > That's another hack :-) We really shouldn't depend on DT nodes order. > > I agree. But if there's an unfixed bug somewhere else, we cannot introduce > regressions (for already supported SoCs). Sure, and I'm fine relying on DT nodes order as a short term hack, but we need to design a proper solution for the longer term. > > I'm all for getting rid of CLK_OF_DECLARE > > Me too. -- Regards, Laurent Pinchart -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe devicetree" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
