| Message ID | 1432590610-8968-1-git-send-email-ashwin.chaugule@linaro.org (mailing list archive) |
|---|---|
| State | Superseded, archived |
| Headers | show |
On Monday, May 25, 2015 05:50:10 PM Ashwin Chaugule wrote: > This change initializes the PCC Mailbox earlier than > the ACPI processor driver. This enables drivers introduced > in follow up patches (e.g. CPPC) to be probed via the ACPI > processor driver interface. The CPPC probe requires the PCC > channel to be initialized for it to query each CPUs performance > capabilites. > > Signed-off-by: Ashwin Chaugule <ashwin.chaugule@linaro.org> > --- > drivers/mailbox/pcc.c | 2 +- > 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-) > > diff --git a/drivers/mailbox/pcc.c b/drivers/mailbox/pcc.c > index 7e91d68..8809587 100644 > --- a/drivers/mailbox/pcc.c > +++ b/drivers/mailbox/pcc.c > @@ -352,4 +352,4 @@ static int __init pcc_init(void) > > return 0; > } > -device_initcall(pcc_init); > +postcore_initcall(pcc_init); If there is an ordering requirement between two components, it's better to make it explicit rather than to change the initcall priorities like that. At least please add a comment why that needs to be postcore_ so people don't have to wonder why it is so.
On 26 May 2015 at 20:50, Rafael J. Wysocki <rjw@rjwysocki.net> wrote: > On Monday, May 25, 2015 05:50:10 PM Ashwin Chaugule wrote: >> This change initializes the PCC Mailbox earlier than >> the ACPI processor driver. This enables drivers introduced >> in follow up patches (e.g. CPPC) to be probed via the ACPI >> processor driver interface. The CPPC probe requires the PCC >> channel to be initialized for it to query each CPUs performance >> capabilites. >> >> Signed-off-by: Ashwin Chaugule <ashwin.chaugule@linaro.org> >> --- >> drivers/mailbox/pcc.c | 2 +- >> 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-) >> >> diff --git a/drivers/mailbox/pcc.c b/drivers/mailbox/pcc.c >> index 7e91d68..8809587 100644 >> --- a/drivers/mailbox/pcc.c >> +++ b/drivers/mailbox/pcc.c >> @@ -352,4 +352,4 @@ static int __init pcc_init(void) >> >> return 0; >> } >> -device_initcall(pcc_init); >> +postcore_initcall(pcc_init); > > If there is an ordering requirement between two components, it's better to > make it explicit rather than to change the initcall priorities like that. > > At least please add a comment why that needs to be postcore_ so people don't > have to wonder why it is so. Will do. Thanks, Ashwin. -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-pm" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
diff --git a/drivers/mailbox/pcc.c b/drivers/mailbox/pcc.c index 7e91d68..8809587 100644 --- a/drivers/mailbox/pcc.c +++ b/drivers/mailbox/pcc.c @@ -352,4 +352,4 @@ static int __init pcc_init(void) return 0; } -device_initcall(pcc_init); +postcore_initcall(pcc_init);
This change initializes the PCC Mailbox earlier than the ACPI processor driver. This enables drivers introduced in follow up patches (e.g. CPPC) to be probed via the ACPI processor driver interface. The CPPC probe requires the PCC channel to be initialized for it to query each CPUs performance capabilites. Signed-off-by: Ashwin Chaugule <ashwin.chaugule@linaro.org> --- drivers/mailbox/pcc.c | 2 +- 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)