Hi Phil,
On Fri, Jul 20, 2018 at 2:26 PM Phil Edworthy <phil.edworthy@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> On 20 July 2018 13:12, Geert Uytterhoeven wrote:
> > On Fri, Jul 20, 2018 at 2:06 PM Phil Edworthy wrote:
> > > On 20 July 2018 12:21, Geert Uytterhoeven wrote:
> > > > On Wed, Jul 18, 2018 at 4:34 PM Phil Edworthy wrote:
> > > > > To avoid all SoC peripheral drivers deferring their probes, both
> > > > > clock and pinctrl drivers should already be probed. Since the
> > > > > pinctrl driver requires a clock to access the registers, the clock
> > > > > driver should be probed before the pinctrl driver.
> > > > >
> > > > > Therefore, move the clock driver from subsys_initcall to core_initcall.
> > > > >
> > > > > Signed-off-by: Phil Edworthy <phil.edworthy@xxxxxxxxxxx>
> > > >
> > > > Thanks for your patch!
> > > Thanks for your review!
> > >
> > > > The (not yet upstreamed) pinctrl driver uses postcore_initcall(), right?
> > > No, the pinctrl driver uses subsys_initcall, but postcore_initcall or
> > > arch_initcall may be better to make it clear about the dependencies.
> >
> > if the pinctrl driver uses subsys_initcall(), ...
> > > > > -subsys_initcall(r9a06g032_clocks_init);
> > > > > +core_initcall(r9a06g032_clocks_init);
> >
> > ... using postcore_initcall() or arch_initcall() here, should work with
> > platform_driver_probe()?
> Nope, you have to use platform_driver_register() for DT based drivers.
> subsys_initcall is the earliest you can use platform_driver_probe().
So drivers/misc/atmel_tclib.c and drivers/pinctrl/pinctrl-coh901.c, which
use arch_initcall(), cannot work?
If that is really true, you can still use subsys_initcall() in the clock driver,
and subsys_initcall_sync() in the pinctrl driver.
Gr{oetje,eeting}s,
Geert
--
Geert Uytterhoeven -- There's lots of Linux beyond ia32 -- geert@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
In personal conversations with technical people, I call myself a hacker. But
when I'm talking to journalists I just say "programmer" or something like that.
-- Linus Torvalds
