On 05/01/2017 08:03 AM, Vinod Koul wrote:
> On Wed, Apr 26, 2017 at 09:17:37AM +0000, Pierre Yves MORDRET wrote:
>>>> +
>>>> + ret = of_property_read_u32(node, "dma-channels",
>>>> + &dmamux->dmamux_channels);
>>>
>>> can we have property_xxx calls alone, that way driver is not strictly
>>> dependent on of
>>
>> Can you please explain what you are asking for ? Not sure to understand
>> correctly.
>
> Use device_property_read_u32() which is a generic property API.
OK Will be done in V2
>
>
>>>> +static int __init stm32_dmamux_init(void)
>>>> +{
>>>> + return platform_driver_register(&stm32_dmamux_driver);
>>>> +}
>>>> +arch_initcall(stm32_dmamux_init);
>>>
>>> why not module init, wouldnt defer probe solve the dependencies
>>>
>>
>> The reason behind many devices (device_initcall level) rely on DMAs. If
>> init is deferred DMAMUX driver will be probed twice if dependents rely
>> on it. This sounds not a good call. This explains arch_initcall level.
>
> Why not deferred probe was introduced to help with dependencies...
>
Most DMAs devices are already in subsys_initcall to avoid multiple
useless probe when clients are deferred. This DMAMUx is itself on top of
DMAs.
DMAMUX ---> DMA#1 ---> Device Client #1
| |--> Device Client #2
| [...]
| |--> Device Client #N
| [...]
|--> DMA#N ---> Device Client #1
|--> Device Client #2
[...]
|--> Device Client #N
arch_initcall might a good call in this case for DMAMUX.
--
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
