| Message ID | e5f53a07775cfb896688051b31acb2261ec1d3a2.1436464513.git.ashwin.chaugule@linaro.org |
|---|---|
| State | Superseded |
| Headers | show |
On 20 July 2015 at 10:20, Sudeep Holla <sudeep.holla@arm.com> wrote: > > > On 09/07/15 19:04, Ashwin Chaugule wrote: >> >> This change initializes the PCC Mailbox earlier than >> the ACPI processor driver. This enables drivers introduced >> in follow up patches (e.g. CPPC) to be probed via the ACPI >> processor driver interface. The CPPC probe requires the PCC >> channel to be initialized for it to query each CPUs performance >> capabilities. >> >> Signed-off-by: Ashwin Chaugule <ashwin.chaugule@linaro.org> >> Reviewed-by: Al Stone <al.stone@linaro.org> >> --- >> drivers/mailbox/pcc.c | 8 +++++++- >> 1 file changed, 7 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-) >> >> diff --git a/drivers/mailbox/pcc.c b/drivers/mailbox/pcc.c >> index 7e91d68..fcda63e 100644 >> --- a/drivers/mailbox/pcc.c >> +++ b/drivers/mailbox/pcc.c >> @@ -352,4 +352,10 @@ static int __init pcc_init(void) >> >> return 0; >> } >> -device_initcall(pcc_init); >> + >> +/* >> + * Make pcc init postcore so that users of this mailbox >> + * such as the ACPI Processor driver have it available >> + * at their init. >> + */ >> +postcore_initcall(pcc_init); >> > > I assumed you have explored other options like deferred probe and > finally resorted to this as they are not feasible ? Yes, and this is the only one that works as expected. :) > Because setting up > these kind of dependency are prone to create issues later on. > > Regards, > Sudeep
diff --git a/drivers/mailbox/pcc.c b/drivers/mailbox/pcc.c index 7e91d68..fcda63e 100644 --- a/drivers/mailbox/pcc.c +++ b/drivers/mailbox/pcc.c @@ -352,4 +352,10 @@ static int __init pcc_init(void) return 0; } -device_initcall(pcc_init); + +/* + * Make pcc init postcore so that users of this mailbox + * such as the ACPI Processor driver have it available + * at their init. + */ +postcore_initcall(pcc_init);