diff mbox

[20/73] arm: use subsys_initcall in non-modular pl320 IPC code

Message ID 1390339396-3479-21-git-send-email-paul.gortmaker@windriver.com
State New, archived
Headers show

Commit Message

Paul Gortmaker Jan. 21, 2014, 9:22 p.m. UTC
The drivers/mailbox/pl320-ipc.o is dependent on config PL320_MBOX
which is declared as a bool.  Hence the code is never going to be
modular.  So using module_init as an alias for __initcall can be
somewhat misleading.

Fix this up now, so that we can relocate module_init from
init.h into module.h in the future.  If we don't do this, we'd
have to add module.h to obviously non-modular code, and that
would be a worse thing.  Also add an inclusion of init.h, as
that was previously implicit.

Note that direct use of __initcall is discouraged, vs. one
of the priority categorized subgroups.  As __initcall gets
mapped onto device_initcall, our use of subsys_initcall (which
seems to make sense for netfilter code) will thus change this
registration from level 6-device to level 4-subsys (i.e. slightly
earlier).  However no impact of that small difference is expected.

Cc: Russell King <linux@arm.linux.org.uk>
Cc: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
Signed-off-by: Paul Gortmaker <paul.gortmaker@windriver.com>
---
 drivers/mailbox/pl320-ipc.c | 2 +-
 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)

Comments

Arnd Bergmann Jan. 21, 2014, 9:44 p.m. UTC | #1
On Tuesday 21 January 2014 16:22:23 Paul Gortmaker wrote:
> 
> Note that direct use of __initcall is discouraged, vs. one
> of the priority categorized subgroups.  As __initcall gets
> mapped onto device_initcall, our use of subsys_initcall (which
> seems to make sense for netfilter code) will thus change this
> registration from level 6-device to level 4-subsys (i.e. slightly
> earlier).  However no impact of that small difference is expected.

This doesn't have anything to do with netfilter. The only user
of this driver at the moment is the highbank cpufreq driver, but
that could change.

	Arnd
Paul Gortmaker Jan. 21, 2014, 10:19 p.m. UTC | #2
On 14-01-21 04:44 PM, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
> On Tuesday 21 January 2014 16:22:23 Paul Gortmaker wrote:
>>
>> Note that direct use of __initcall is discouraged, vs. one
>> of the priority categorized subgroups.  As __initcall gets
>> mapped onto device_initcall, our use of subsys_initcall (which
>> seems to make sense for netfilter code) will thus change this
>> registration from level 6-device to level 4-subsys (i.e. slightly
>> earlier).  However no impact of that small difference is expected.
> 
> This doesn't have anything to do with netfilter. The only user
> of this driver at the moment is the highbank cpufreq driver, but
> that could change.

Thanks -- cut and paste error from an earlier, similar changeset.
Will "s/netfilter/IPC/" 

Paul.
--
> 
> 	Arnd
>
diff mbox

Patch

diff --git a/drivers/mailbox/pl320-ipc.c b/drivers/mailbox/pl320-ipc.c
index d873cba..b2737a2 100644
--- a/drivers/mailbox/pl320-ipc.c
+++ b/drivers/mailbox/pl320-ipc.c
@@ -195,4 +195,4 @@  static int __init ipc_init(void)
 {
 	return amba_driver_register(&pl320_driver);
 }
-module_init(ipc_init);
+subsys_initcall(ipc_init);