From: Bjorn Helgaas <bjorn.helgaas@hp.com>
To: Yinghai Lu <yinghai@kernel.org>
Cc: Len Brown <lenb@kernel.org>,
linux-acpi@vger.kernel.org, Li Shaohua <shaohua.li@intel.com>,
Alexey Starikovskiy <astarikovskiy@suse.de>,
Zhao Yakui <yakui.zhao@intel.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 06/10] ACPI: call acpi_debug_init() explicitly rather than as initcall
Date: Wed, 25 Mar 2009 16:47:17 -0600 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <200903251647.18535.bjorn.helgaas@hp.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <49CA861D.1010502@kernel.org>
On Wednesday 25 March 2009 01:29:33 pm Yinghai Lu wrote:
> Bjorn Helgaas wrote:
> > If I understand you correctly, you're raising a style issue, and
> > there's no functional problem either way. Right?
>
> besides that, some last_calls are merged to direct call.
> wonder if those calling could depend on pci_acpi_init etc.
Can you be specific? I can't do much with vague wondering.
I changed the following initcalls from subsys_initcall to direct calls:
ACPI: call acpi_scan_init() explicitly rather than as initcall
ACPI: call acpi_ec_init() explicitly rather than as initcall
ACPI: call acpi_power_init() explicitly rather than as initcall
ACPI: call acpi_system_init() explicitly rather than as initcall
ACPI: call acpi_debug_init() explicitly rather than as initcall
pci_acpi_init() is called from pci_subsys_init(), which is also a
subsys_initcall, but it's in arch/x86.
In the current tree (before my patches) all the ACPI subsys_initcalls
are done before any of the arch/x86 subsys_initcalls. So changing the
ACPI subsys_initcalls to direct calls should not change the order with
respect to pci_acpi_init().
This one changed from an arch_initcall to a direct call:
ACPI: call init_acpi_device_notify() explicitly rather than as initcall
In that case, init_acpi_device_notify() happens before pci_acpi_init()
whether it's an arch_initcall or a direct call. So this shouldn't be
a problem either.
These two changed from late_initcalls to direct calls:
ACPI: call acpi_sleep_proc_init() explicitly rather than as initcall
ACPI: call acpi_wakeup_device_init() explicitly rather than as initcall
These two did change order with respect to pci_acpi_init(). As
late_initcalls, they happened after pci_acpi_init(). As direct calls,
they happen before pci_acpi_init().
However, I do not see any dependency of either one on pci_acpi_init(),
so I don't think it makes any difference. Do you?
Bjorn
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2009-03-25 22:47 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 18+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2009-03-24 22:49 [PATCH 00/10] ACPI: remove several initcalls Bjorn Helgaas
2009-03-24 22:49 ` [PATCH 01/10] ACPI: skip DMI power state check when ACPI disabled Bjorn Helgaas
2009-03-24 22:49 ` [PATCH 02/10] ACPI: call acpi_scan_init() explicitly rather than as initcall Bjorn Helgaas
2009-03-24 22:49 ` [PATCH 03/10] ACPI: call acpi_ec_init() " Bjorn Helgaas
2009-03-24 22:49 ` [PATCH 04/10] ACPI: call acpi_power_init() " Bjorn Helgaas
2009-03-24 22:49 ` [PATCH 05/10] ACPI: call acpi_system_init() " Bjorn Helgaas
2009-03-24 22:50 ` [PATCH 06/10] ACPI: call acpi_debug_init() " Bjorn Helgaas
2009-03-24 23:08 ` Yinghai Lu
2009-03-24 23:15 ` Bjorn Helgaas
2009-03-24 23:20 ` Yinghai Lu
2009-03-25 14:53 ` Bjorn Helgaas
2009-03-25 19:29 ` Yinghai Lu
2009-03-25 22:47 ` Bjorn Helgaas [this message]
2009-03-24 22:50 ` [PATCH 07/10] ACPI: call init_acpi_device_notify() " Bjorn Helgaas
2009-03-24 22:50 ` [PATCH 08/10] ACPI: call acpi_sleep_proc_init() " Bjorn Helgaas
2009-03-24 22:50 ` [PATCH 09/10] ACPI: call acpi_wakeup_device_init() " Bjorn Helgaas
2009-03-24 22:50 ` [PATCH 10/10] ACPI: tidy up makefile Bjorn Helgaas
2009-03-27 16:57 ` [PATCH 00/10] ACPI: remove several initcalls Len Brown
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=200903251647.18535.bjorn.helgaas@hp.com \
--to=bjorn.helgaas@hp.com \
--cc=astarikovskiy@suse.de \
--cc=lenb@kernel.org \
--cc=linux-acpi@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=shaohua.li@intel.com \
--cc=yakui.zhao@intel.com \
--cc=yinghai@kernel.org \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox