Re: [RESEND PATCH v5 1/2] dmaengine: mxs: use platform_driver_register

From: Vinod Koul <vkoul@kernel.org>
To: Sascha Hauer <s.hauer@pengutronix.de>
Cc: Dario Binacchi <dario.binacchi@amarulasolutions.com>,
	linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-amarula@amarulasolutions.com,
	Michael Trimarchi <michael@amarulasolutions.com>,
	stable@vger.kernel.org, Fabio Estevam <festevam@gmail.com>,
	NXP Linux Team <linux-imx@nxp.com>,
	Pengutronix Kernel Team <kernel@pengutronix.de>,
	Shawn Guo <shawnguo@kernel.org>,
	dmaengine@vger.kernel.org, linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
Subject: Re: [RESEND PATCH v5 1/2] dmaengine: mxs: use platform_driver_register
Date: Wed, 21 Sep 2022 18:20:24 +0530	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <YysIkA1zcql2JysN@matsya> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20220921103930.GM12909@pengutronix.de>

On 21-09-22, 12:39, Sascha Hauer wrote:
> On Wed, Sep 21, 2022 at 08:53:23AM +0530, Vinod Koul wrote:
> > On 20-09-22, 19:10, Dario Binacchi wrote:

> > > > How I see it v3 of this patch is perfectly fine and should be taken
> > > > instead of this one. I just commented that to v3.
> > > >
> > > > Not sure if Vinod would take v3, or if you should resend v3 as v6
> > > > instead. If you do, you can add my Acked-by.
> > > >
> > > > Vinod, please let us know what you prefer.
> > > 
> > > Could you please let me know how to proceed? This patch has been pending for
> > > a while and it's a real shame as the change is minimal and fixes a
> > > real issue that is
> > > still present in the mainline and stable kernels.
> > 
> > Ooops, Somehow this seems to have really slipped. Sorry I owe you an
> > apology for this
> > 
> > I am still not sure of this patch yet, lets get it right and merged
> > quickly. I will send my review later today
> 
> I just realized that unlike what I said v3 of this patch is still wrong
> as it leaves the __init annotation on mxs_dma_init() which is called
> from (non __init) mxs_dma_probe(). v3 probably doesn't give a section
> mismatch warning because mxs_dma_init() is inlined.
> 
> Really v2 is the one we should take which is at:

hmmm, looking at the old revs, that does look sane. My question was why
__init change is there, it needs to be documented and if there are two
different reasons, add that

I agree rev 2 is the right things to do and changelog needs to add why
we dropped __init (i dont think this should be a different patchset as
that leads to warnings ...

> https://lore.kernel.org/linux-arm-kernel/20220523132247.1429321-1-dario.binacchi@amarulasolutions.com/T/

-- 
~Vinod