From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Tony Lindgren Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 00/17] omap: mailbox: reorganize init Date: Wed, 19 May 2010 11:13:49 -0700 Message-ID: <20100519181348.GE5818@atomide.com> References: <20100518.163145.232774311.Hiroshi.DOYU@nokia.com> <20100518.225835.116348725.Hiroshi.DOYU@nokia.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Return-path: Received: from mho-01-ewr.mailhop.org ([204.13.248.71]:64259 "EHLO mho-01-ewr.mailhop.org" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751238Ab0ESSOA (ORCPT ); Wed, 19 May 2010 14:14:00 -0400 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: Sender: linux-omap-owner@vger.kernel.org List-Id: linux-omap@vger.kernel.org To: Felipe Contreras Cc: Hiroshi DOYU , linux-omap@vger.kernel.org, linux@arm.linux.org.uk, linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org * Felipe Contreras [100519 02:58]: > On Tue, May 18, 2010 at 10:58 PM, Hiroshi DOYU wrote: > > From: ext Felipe Contreras > > Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 00/17] omap: mailbox: reorganize init > > Date: Tue, 18 May 2010 18:57:55 +0200 > > > >> On Tue, May 18, 2010 at 4:31 PM, Hiroshi DOYU wrote: > >>> From: ext Felipe Contreras > >>>> I'm not familiar with this kind of module loading, but certainly not > >>>> all systems have udev. > >>>> > >>>> I realized the problem because I have a bare-bones system in my > >>>> beagleboard where I had to manually load mailbox_mach. > >>> > >>> With udev or something equivalent, it should work fine. > >> > >> But still, you are relying on udev. I don't think we should, and I > >> don't think there's any need. > > > > Some expert may give some comment here..... > > Russell, Tony: should mailbox_mach, a module that checks for logical > devices be always built-in? > > I think that's the easiest... in my patches I moved the > architecture-specific code from mach-omapX/devices.c to > mach-omapX/mailbox.c, so both the logical devices and real platform > devices are in the same code, and can be built-in. > > This way, there's no need to rely on services like udev to load > mailbox, then mailbox_mach, then bridgedriver. After all, all > mailbox_mach is doing is calling functions in mailbox to register the > logical devices. > > Judging from: > http://article.gmane.org/gmane.linux.ports.arm.kernel/58555 > > The answer is yes. Maybe try using the tested good old criteria: What works the best for "standard Linux behaviour" out of the box? :) Anything that registers platform devices should be built in. Also anything that's needed to boot the device into a sane operating mode should be built in. For example, the DSP should be powered down (or idled on some earlier omaps) even if no bridge is being used. Cheers, Tony From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: tony@atomide.com (Tony Lindgren) Date: Wed, 19 May 2010 11:13:49 -0700 Subject: [PATCH v2 00/17] omap: mailbox: reorganize init In-Reply-To: References: <20100518.163145.232774311.Hiroshi.DOYU@nokia.com> <20100518.225835.116348725.Hiroshi.DOYU@nokia.com> Message-ID: <20100519181348.GE5818@atomide.com> To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org List-Id: linux-arm-kernel.lists.infradead.org * Felipe Contreras [100519 02:58]: > On Tue, May 18, 2010 at 10:58 PM, Hiroshi DOYU wrote: > > From: ext Felipe Contreras > > Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 00/17] omap: mailbox: reorganize init > > Date: Tue, 18 May 2010 18:57:55 +0200 > > > >> On Tue, May 18, 2010 at 4:31 PM, Hiroshi DOYU wrote: > >>> From: ext Felipe Contreras > >>>> I'm not familiar with this kind of module loading, but certainly not > >>>> all systems have udev. > >>>> > >>>> I realized the problem because I have a bare-bones system in my > >>>> beagleboard where I had to manually load mailbox_mach. > >>> > >>> With udev or something equivalent, it should work fine. > >> > >> But still, you are relying on udev. I don't think we should, and I > >> don't think there's any need. > > > > Some expert may give some comment here..... > > Russell, Tony: should mailbox_mach, a module that checks for logical > devices be always built-in? > > I think that's the easiest... in my patches I moved the > architecture-specific code from mach-omapX/devices.c to > mach-omapX/mailbox.c, so both the logical devices and real platform > devices are in the same code, and can be built-in. > > This way, there's no need to rely on services like udev to load > mailbox, then mailbox_mach, then bridgedriver. After all, all > mailbox_mach is doing is calling functions in mailbox to register the > logical devices. > > Judging from: > http://article.gmane.org/gmane.linux.ports.arm.kernel/58555 > > The answer is yes. Maybe try using the tested good old criteria: What works the best for "standard Linux behaviour" out of the box? :) Anything that registers platform devices should be built in. Also anything that's needed to boot the device into a sane operating mode should be built in. For example, the DSP should be powered down (or idled on some earlier omaps) even if no bridge is being used. Cheers, Tony