On 26 August 2014 22:32, Hauke Mehrtens <hauke@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On 08/26/2014 06:42 PM, Rafał Miłecki wrote: >> 3) Above change (point 2) would require some small change in bcma. We >> would need 2-stages init: detecting (with kmalloc!) bus cores, >> registering cores. This is required, because we can't register cores >> too early, device_add (and the underlying kobject) would oops/WARN in >> kobject_get. >> > > This sound good to me, but I still have some questions. > > Do you also want to change ssb registration? > Is it worth the effort? I think MIPS bcm47xx will be EOL and replaced by > the ARM versions completely in the next years. (I do not have any > private information about Broadcom product politics) ssb has its own hacks like having "struct device" static (I think it was a big "no" from Greg when introducing bcma). ssb is already smart enough to detect early boot phase and don't register devices then. I think we won't need to modify ssb at all. On the other hand I care about bcma, as it's used by PCIe devices and will still be used on ARM SoCs. > I think this will be reduce the number of hacks a little bit, but you > still need a 2 stage init of bcma for mips SoCs, and I do not know how > to prevent this. I'm OK with two separated calls to the bcma to register it fully. Not a big deal. We could also think about sth like a ssb_is_early_boot, not sure about this yet. -- Rafał
