On Thursday 20 November 2014 15:18:55 Ludovic Desroches wrote: > On Thu, Nov 20, 2014 at 03:13:30PM +0100, Arnd Bergmann wrote: > > On Thursday 20 November 2014 15:01:25 Ludovic Desroches wrote: > > > On Thu, Nov 20, 2014 at 12:10:25PM +0100, Arnd Bergmann wrote: > > > > On Thursday 20 November 2014 11:07:54 Ludovic Desroches wrote: > > > > > No more use late initcall to manage probing order. Use probe deferring > > > > > if needed. Then use module_platform_driver and clean init/exit > > > > > attributes. > > > > > > > > > > Signed-off-by: Ludovic Desroches <ludovic.desroches@xxxxxxxxx> > > > > > > > > > > > > > Do we need this backported into stable kernels? It seems that > > > > the __init/__exit annotations will break things if you ever > > > > tried to unbind the device or run into deferred probing on > > > > earlier kernels. > > > > > > Well, it is a bit complicated, if we backport it, then the mci driver > > > could be probed before the dma controller. Requesting dma chan will fail > > > and it will switch to pio mode. > > > > > > So it has to be backported with the probe deferring. The issue is > > > that probe deferring patch is based on other patches removing non-dt > > > support which become useless only ine 3.19. > > > > > > > Should we just have the __init/__exit removal in backports then? > > Yes. Do you want me to split this patch in order to have ony one for > __init/__exit removal and another one for late_initcall removal? > > Yes, I think that would be best. Arnd -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-mmc" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
