From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Kevin Hilman Subject: Re: [PATCH] OMAP: pm.c correct the initcall for an early init. Date: Mon, 13 Dec 2010 17:06:36 -0800 Message-ID: <87zks92meb.fsf@deeprootsystems.com> References: <1291201283-21185-1-git-send-email-thara@ti.com> <878w0847vo.fsf@deeprootsystems.com> <5A47E75E594F054BAF48C5E4FC4B92AB03736F4913@dbde02.ent.ti.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Return-path: Received: from mail-pw0-f46.google.com ([209.85.160.46]:43927 "EHLO mail-pw0-f46.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1758782Ab0LNBGm (ORCPT ); Mon, 13 Dec 2010 20:06:42 -0500 Received: by pwj3 with SMTP id 3so20438pwj.19 for ; Mon, 13 Dec 2010 17:06:42 -0800 (PST) In-Reply-To: <5A47E75E594F054BAF48C5E4FC4B92AB03736F4913@dbde02.ent.ti.com> (Thara Gopinath's message of "Fri, 3 Dec 2010 14:17:10 +0530") Sender: linux-omap-owner@vger.kernel.org List-Id: linux-omap@vger.kernel.org To: "Gopinath, Thara" Cc: "linux-omap@vger.kernel.org" "Gopinath, Thara" writes: >>>-----Original Message----- >>>From: Kevin Hilman [mailto:khilman@deeprootsystems.com] >>>Sent: Thursday, December 02, 2010 7:03 PM >>>To: Gopinath, Thara >>>Cc: linux-omap@vger.kernel.org >>>Subject: Re: [PATCH] OMAP: pm.c correct the initcall for an early init. >>> >>>Thara Gopinath writes: >>> >>>> omap2_common_pm_init is the API where generic system devices like >>>> mpu, l3 etc get initialized. This has to happen really early on >>>> during the boot and not at a later time. This is especially important >>>> with the new opp changes as these devices need to be built before the >>>> opp tables init happen. Today both are device initcalls and it works >>>> just because of the order of compilation >>> >>>Why postcore? there are several other inicalls earlier than >>>device_initcall. > > Because the init in omap_device is a core_initcall. With respect > to opp layer, making this anything above device_initcall will work. But > then tomorrow some other module needs these generic devices in their init, > we will again have to bump up the init priority of this fn. > It is a good thing to do this early on in the boot cycle rather > than later. OK, please describe this in more detail the changelog. Thanks, Kevin