From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Return-Path: Date: Wed, 19 Sep 2018 14:17:35 -0600 From: Keith Busch To: Bjorn Helgaas Cc: Linux PCI , Bjorn Helgaas , Benjamin Herrenschmidt , Sinan Kaya , Thomas Tai , poza@codeaurora.org, Lukas Wunner , Christoph Hellwig , Mika Westerberg Subject: Re: [PATCHv3 01/10] PCI/portdrv: Use subsys_init for service drivers Message-ID: <20180919201735.GD28310@localhost.localdomain> References: <20180918235702.26573-1-keith.busch@intel.com> <20180918235702.26573-2-keith.busch@intel.com> <20180919162846.GB243610@bhelgaas-glaptop.roam.corp.google.com> <20180919180003.GC28310@localhost.localdomain> <20180919194029.GA261184@bhelgaas-glaptop.roam.corp.google.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii In-Reply-To: <20180919194029.GA261184@bhelgaas-glaptop.roam.corp.google.com> List-ID: On Wed, Sep 19, 2018 at 02:40:29PM -0500, Bjorn Helgaas wrote: > On Wed, Sep 19, 2018 at 12:00:03PM -0600, Keith Busch wrote: > > On Wed, Sep 19, 2018 at 11:28:46AM -0500, Bjorn Helgaas wrote: > > > On Tue, Sep 18, 2018 at 05:56:53PM -0600, Keith Busch wrote: > > > Since none of the service drivers can be modules, I don't think it > > > buys us much to make their init functions initcalls. Can we > > > explicitly call them from the pcie_portdrv_probe() path? > > > > It's actually during pcie_portdrv_init that the services need to be > > initialized if we're going this way. Do you think the following is > > better? The initialization order should be more clear to the reader at > > the cost of more code than init call magic, but I'm okay having this > > done either way. > > Yes. More code, less magic seems like the right tradeoff to me. Sounds good. Will send a new version of the set using this method, plus merging up to the current pci/hotplug and the documentation updates.