On 25-04-16, 14:53, Arnd Bergmann wrote: > On Monday 25 April 2016 08:30:41 Viresh Kumar wrote:
> I realize that the ordering is fixed through the way that the kernel > is linked, my worry is more about someone changing the code in some > way because it's not obvious from reading the code that the > dependency exists. If either the armada_xp_pmsu_cpufreq_init() > initcall gets changed so it does not always get called, or the > cpufreq_dt_platdev_init() initcall gets changed so it comes a little > earlier, things will break. cpufreq-dt will just error out in that case, because it wouldn't find any OPPs registered to the OPP-core. It *shouldn't* crash and if it does, then we have a problem to fix. > > The other thing that can happen is that armada_xp_pmsu_cpufreq_init() > > call can fail. In that case, most of the times cpufreq-dt ->init() > > will fail as well, so even that is fine for me. > > > > And, so I think we can keep this patch as is. > > What are the downsides of moving armada_xp_pmsu_cpufreq_init() > into drivers/cpufreq? More special code :) -- viresh
