Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > linux.kernel > #1483376 > unrolled thread

[RFC PATCH v2 11/11] irqchip: mbigen: promote mbigen init

Back to article view | Back to linux.kernel

This discussion starts older than the indexed window; earlier articles aren't shown. The article labeled Started by below is the oldest one visible, not the original post.

Contents

  [RFC PATCH v2 11/11] irqchip: mbigen: promote mbigen init Hanjun Guo <guohanjun@huawei.com> - 2016-09-14 16:30 +0200
    Re: [RFC PATCH v2 11/11] irqchip: mbigen: promote mbigen init Marc Zyngier <marc.zyngier@arm.com> - 2016-09-15 17:30 +0200
      Re: [RFC PATCH v2 11/11] irqchip: mbigen: promote mbigen init Hanjun Guo <hanjun.guo@linaro.org> - 2016-09-19 12:00 +0200
        Re: [RFC PATCH v2 11/11] irqchip: mbigen: promote mbigen init Marc Zyngier <marc.zyngier@arm.com> - 2016-09-19 12:20 +0200
          Re: [RFC PATCH v2 11/11] irqchip: mbigen: promote mbigen init Hanjun Guo <guohanjun@huawei.com> - 2016-09-20 04:50 +0200

#1483376 — [RFC PATCH v2 11/11] irqchip: mbigen: promote mbigen init

From: Hanjun Guo <hanjun.guo@linaro.org>

mbigen is an irqchip and it needs to be probed before
devices, same logic is used for SMMU and etc., let's
use arch_initcall instead of platform init for mbigen.

Cc: Marc Zyngier <marc.zyngier@arm.com>
Cc: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>
Cc: Ma Jun <majun258@huawei.com>
Signed-off-by: Hanjun Guo <hanjun.guo@linaro.org>
---
 drivers/irqchip/irq-mbigen.c | 6 +++++-
 1 file changed, 5 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)

diff --git a/drivers/irqchip/irq-mbigen.c b/drivers/irqchip/irq-mbigen.c
index ca6add1..3a33de6 100644
--- a/drivers/irqchip/irq-mbigen.c
+++ b/drivers/irqchip/irq-mbigen.c
@@ -374,7 +374,11 @@ static struct platform_driver mbigen_platform_driver = {
 	.probe			= mbigen_device_probe,
 };
 
-module_platform_driver(mbigen_platform_driver);
+static __init int mbigen_init(void)
+{
+	return platform_driver_register(&mbigen_platform_driver);
+}
+arch_initcall(mbigen_init);
 
 MODULE_AUTHOR("Jun Ma <majun258@huawei.com>");
 MODULE_AUTHOR("Yun Wu <wuyun.wu@huawei.com>");
-- 
1.7.12.4

[toc] | [next] | [standalone]

#1484315

On 14/09/16 15:21, Hanjun Guo wrote:
> From: Hanjun Guo <hanjun.guo@linaro.org>
> 
> mbigen is an irqchip and it needs to be probed before
> devices, same logic is used for SMMU and etc., let's
> use arch_initcall instead of platform init for mbigen.
> 
> Cc: Marc Zyngier <marc.zyngier@arm.com>
> Cc: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>
> Cc: Ma Jun <majun258@huawei.com>
> Signed-off-by: Hanjun Guo <hanjun.guo@linaro.org>
> ---
>  drivers/irqchip/irq-mbigen.c | 6 +++++-
>  1 file changed, 5 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
> 
> diff --git a/drivers/irqchip/irq-mbigen.c b/drivers/irqchip/irq-mbigen.c
> index ca6add1..3a33de6 100644
> --- a/drivers/irqchip/irq-mbigen.c
> +++ b/drivers/irqchip/irq-mbigen.c
> @@ -374,7 +374,11 @@ static struct platform_driver mbigen_platform_driver = {
>  	.probe			= mbigen_device_probe,
>  };
>  
> -module_platform_driver(mbigen_platform_driver);
> +static __init int mbigen_init(void)
> +{
> +	return platform_driver_register(&mbigen_platform_driver);
> +}
> +arch_initcall(mbigen_init);
>  
>  MODULE_AUTHOR("Jun Ma <majun258@huawei.com>");
>  MODULE_AUTHOR("Yun Wu <wuyun.wu@huawei.com>");
> 

I've already NACKed such a patch in the past, and I will carry on
NACKing it until all the other avenues (like properly tracking device
dependencies) have been explored and have been proven not to be fit for
purpose.

Rafael had proposed something around this subject last year, and I've
been repeatedly advising you to work with him and others to make it
happen. You can choose to ignore this advise, but that doesn't make this
patch an acceptable approach.

Thanks,

	M.
-- 
Jazz is not dead. It just smells funny...

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#1486313

On 2016/9/15 23:24, Marc Zyngier wrote:
> On 14/09/16 15:21, Hanjun Guo wrote:
>> From: Hanjun Guo <hanjun.guo@linaro.org>
>>
>> mbigen is an irqchip and it needs to be probed before
>> devices, same logic is used for SMMU and etc., let's
>> use arch_initcall instead of platform init for mbigen.
>>
>> Cc: Marc Zyngier <marc.zyngier@arm.com>
>> Cc: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>
>> Cc: Ma Jun <majun258@huawei.com>
>> Signed-off-by: Hanjun Guo <hanjun.guo@linaro.org>
>> ---
>>  drivers/irqchip/irq-mbigen.c | 6 +++++-
>>  1 file changed, 5 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
>>
>> diff --git a/drivers/irqchip/irq-mbigen.c b/drivers/irqchip/irq-mbigen.c
>> index ca6add1..3a33de6 100644
>> --- a/drivers/irqchip/irq-mbigen.c
>> +++ b/drivers/irqchip/irq-mbigen.c
>> @@ -374,7 +374,11 @@ static struct platform_driver mbigen_platform_driver = {
>>  	.probe			= mbigen_device_probe,
>>  };
>>
>> -module_platform_driver(mbigen_platform_driver);
>> +static __init int mbigen_init(void)
>> +{
>> +	return platform_driver_register(&mbigen_platform_driver);
>> +}
>> +arch_initcall(mbigen_init);
>>
>>  MODULE_AUTHOR("Jun Ma <majun258@huawei.com>");
>>  MODULE_AUTHOR("Yun Wu <wuyun.wu@huawei.com>");
>>
>
> I've already NACKed such a patch in the past, and I will carry on
> NACKing it until all the other avenues (like properly tracking device
> dependencies) have been explored and have been proven not to be fit for
> purpose.

I'd happy to work on this to make progress.

>
> Rafael had proposed something around this subject last year, and I've

Sorry, obviously I missed something, could you give me the link about
Rafael's patches? I will pull back and test it on our hardware.

> been repeatedly advising you to work with him and others to make it
> happen. You can choose to ignore this advise, but that doesn't make this
> patch an acceptable approach.

OK, I will drop this patch in next version, and work on the generic
solution instead.

Thanks
Hanjun

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#1486327

On 19/09/16 10:49, Hanjun Guo wrote:
> On 2016/9/15 23:24, Marc Zyngier wrote:
>> On 14/09/16 15:21, Hanjun Guo wrote:
>>> From: Hanjun Guo <hanjun.guo@linaro.org>
>>>
>>> mbigen is an irqchip and it needs to be probed before
>>> devices, same logic is used for SMMU and etc., let's
>>> use arch_initcall instead of platform init for mbigen.
>>>
>>> Cc: Marc Zyngier <marc.zyngier@arm.com>
>>> Cc: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>
>>> Cc: Ma Jun <majun258@huawei.com>
>>> Signed-off-by: Hanjun Guo <hanjun.guo@linaro.org>
>>> ---
>>>  drivers/irqchip/irq-mbigen.c | 6 +++++-
>>>  1 file changed, 5 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
>>>
>>> diff --git a/drivers/irqchip/irq-mbigen.c b/drivers/irqchip/irq-mbigen.c
>>> index ca6add1..3a33de6 100644
>>> --- a/drivers/irqchip/irq-mbigen.c
>>> +++ b/drivers/irqchip/irq-mbigen.c
>>> @@ -374,7 +374,11 @@ static struct platform_driver mbigen_platform_driver = {
>>>  	.probe			= mbigen_device_probe,
>>>  };
>>>
>>> -module_platform_driver(mbigen_platform_driver);
>>> +static __init int mbigen_init(void)
>>> +{
>>> +	return platform_driver_register(&mbigen_platform_driver);
>>> +}
>>> +arch_initcall(mbigen_init);
>>>
>>>  MODULE_AUTHOR("Jun Ma <majun258@huawei.com>");
>>>  MODULE_AUTHOR("Yun Wu <wuyun.wu@huawei.com>");
>>>
>>
>> I've already NACKed such a patch in the past, and I will carry on
>> NACKing it until all the other avenues (like properly tracking device
>> dependencies) have been explored and have been proven not to be fit for
>> purpose.
> 
> I'd happy to work on this to make progress.
> 
>>
>> Rafael had proposed something around this subject last year, and I've
> 
> Sorry, obviously I missed something, could you give me the link about
> Rafael's patches? I will pull back and test it on our hardware.

Please see this discussion from almost a year ago:

https://patchwork.kernel.org/patch/7407401/

in which I give the existing pointers and explain why I'm pushing back
on things like this patch.

> 
>> been repeatedly advising you to work with him and others to make it
>> happen. You can choose to ignore this advise, but that doesn't make this
>> patch an acceptable approach.
> 
> OK, I will drop this patch in next version, and work on the generic
> solution instead.

That'd be the ideal thing, and that's what I suggested when we did meet
in BKK earlier this year. Obviously, I didn't convey my point clearly
enough.

Thanks,

	M.
-- 
Jazz is not dead. It just smells funny...

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#1487026

On 2016/9/19 18:12, Marc Zyngier wrote:
> On 19/09/16 10:49, Hanjun Guo wrote:
>> On 2016/9/15 23:24, Marc Zyngier wrote:
>>> On 14/09/16 15:21, Hanjun Guo wrote:
>>>> From: Hanjun Guo <hanjun.guo@linaro.org>
>>>>
>>>> mbigen is an irqchip and it needs to be probed before
>>>> devices, same logic is used for SMMU and etc., let's
>>>> use arch_initcall instead of platform init for mbigen.
>>>>
>>>> Cc: Marc Zyngier <marc.zyngier@arm.com>
>>>> Cc: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>
>>>> Cc: Ma Jun <majun258@huawei.com>
>>>> Signed-off-by: Hanjun Guo <hanjun.guo@linaro.org>
>>>> ---
>>>>  drivers/irqchip/irq-mbigen.c | 6 +++++-
>>>>  1 file changed, 5 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
>>>>
>>>> diff --git a/drivers/irqchip/irq-mbigen.c b/drivers/irqchip/irq-mbigen.c
>>>> index ca6add1..3a33de6 100644
>>>> --- a/drivers/irqchip/irq-mbigen.c
>>>> +++ b/drivers/irqchip/irq-mbigen.c
>>>> @@ -374,7 +374,11 @@ static struct platform_driver mbigen_platform_driver = {
>>>>  	.probe			= mbigen_device_probe,
>>>>  };
>>>>
>>>> -module_platform_driver(mbigen_platform_driver);
>>>> +static __init int mbigen_init(void)
>>>> +{
>>>> +	return platform_driver_register(&mbigen_platform_driver);
>>>> +}
>>>> +arch_initcall(mbigen_init);
>>>>
>>>>  MODULE_AUTHOR("Jun Ma <majun258@huawei.com>");
>>>>  MODULE_AUTHOR("Yun Wu <wuyun.wu@huawei.com>");
>>>>
>>> I've already NACKed such a patch in the past, and I will carry on
>>> NACKing it until all the other avenues (like properly tracking device
>>> dependencies) have been explored and have been proven not to be fit for
>>> purpose.
>> I'd happy to work on this to make progress.
>>
>>> Rafael had proposed something around this subject last year, and I've
>> Sorry, obviously I missed something, could you give me the link about
>> Rafael's patches? I will pull back and test it on our hardware.
> Please see this discussion from almost a year ago:
>
> https://patchwork.kernel.org/patch/7407401/
>
> in which I give the existing pointers and explain why I'm pushing back
> on things like this patch.

We (Majun and me ) will look into it, thanks!

Hanjun

[toc] | [prev] | [standalone]

Back to top | Article view | linux.kernel

csiph-web