From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: yingjoe.chen@mediatek.com (Yingjoe Chen) Date: Thu, 24 Dec 2015 16:10:43 +0800 Subject: [PATCH] regulator: mt6397: convert to arch_initcall In-Reply-To: <20151223120019.GU16023@sirena.org.uk> References: <1450865768-10317-1-git-send-email-henryc.chen@mediatek.com> <20151223120019.GU16023@sirena.org.uk> Message-ID: <1450944643.30352.9.camel@mtksdaap41> To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org List-Id: linux-arm-kernel.lists.infradead.org On Wed, 2015-12-23 at 12:00 +0000, Mark Brown wrote: > On Wed, Dec 23, 2015 at 06:16:08PM +0800, Henry Chen wrote: > > Please fix your mail client to word wrap within paragraphs at something > substantially less than 80 columns. Doing this makes your messages much > easier to read and reply to. > > > Due to some device may need reulator operation in earlier boot time like gpu module which > > power domain need regulator power on first. Move regulator of mt6397 > > initialization earlier in boot so that real devices can use regulator > > without probe deferring. > > Several problems here. One is that we usually use subsys_initcall() for > working around the known broken subsystems here, why have you decided to > go for arch_initcall() instead. Another is that you're saying this is > for GPUs but I'm not aware of any reason why GPUs are broken and we > should not be introducing new problems here - what's going on? These changes are related to pinctrl init order patch. The related discussion is here: http://lists.infradead.org/pipermail/linux-mediatek/2015-December/003298.html and these should really be a series: mediatek pwrap http://lists.infradead.org/pipermail/linux-mediatek/2015-December/003347.html mt6397 MFD core http://lists.infradead.org/pipermail/linux-mediatek/2015-December/003348.html mt6397 regulator http://lists.infradead.org/pipermail/linux-mediatek/2015-December/003349.html I think Henry use arch_initcall because that's what pinctrl patch was using. In this case, we should use subsys_initcall for all these. Joe.C