On 25-04-16, 17:26, Arnd Bergmann wrote: > On Monday 25 April 2016 18:26:05 Viresh Kumar wrote: > > 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. > > Ok. > > > > > 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 :) > > Of course the special code still exists, it seems more like neither of > us wants to have it in the portion of the kernel that he maintains ;-)
Hehe.. But after $subject patch, we don't have any special code for creating the device, isn't it? > Maybe the mvebu maintainers have a preference where they'd like the > code to be, they are the ones that are most impacted if anything > goes wrong. What code are you talking about? Initializing the OPPs or adding the cpufreq-dt device? The first one (or whatever is left now in that function) can stay anywhere, even as a cpufreq driver. I was talking about the fact that we don't have a sequence problem to solve here. -- viresh
