Re: [PATCH 3/3] x86, perf, uncore: Don't make MSR uncore depend on PCI uncore

2015-06-18 Thread Thomas Gleixner
On Thu, 18 Jun 2015, Andi Kleen wrote: > > One possible solution is to split the initcall and have one > > for uncore_pci and one for uncode_msr, but that does not work well if > > you want to make it a module. > > > > But we should at least have some indication, what worked and what went > > wron

Re: [PATCH 3/3] x86, perf, uncore: Don't make MSR uncore depend on PCI uncore

2015-06-18 Thread Andi Kleen
> So now we return success, if nothing is there or stuff failed? Right. > > One possible solution is to split the initcall and have one > for uncore_pci and one for uncode_msr, but that does not work well if > you want to make it a module. > > But we should at least have some indication, what w

Re: [PATCH 3/3] x86, perf, uncore: Don't make MSR uncore depend on PCI uncore

2015-06-18 Thread Thomas Gleixner
On Thu, 18 Jun 2015, Andi Kleen wrote: > static int __init intel_uncore_init(void) > { > - int ret; > + int ret1, ret2; > > if (boot_cpu_data.x86_vendor != X86_VENDOR_INTEL) > return -ENODEV; > @@ -1295,19 +1297,12 @@ static int __init intel_uncore_init(void) >

Re: [PATCH 3/3] x86, perf, uncore: Don't make MSR uncore depend on PCI uncore

2015-06-16 Thread Thomas Gleixner
On Sun, 14 Jun 2015, Andi Kleen wrote: > @@ -1287,27 +1289,17 @@ static void __init uncore_cpumask_init(void) > > static int __init intel_uncore_init(void) > { > - int ret; > - > if (boot_cpu_data.x86_vendor != X86_VENDOR_INTEL) > return -ENODEV; > > if (cpu_has_