From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: arnd@arndb.de (Arnd Bergmann) Date: Mon, 25 Apr 2016 17:26:38 +0200 Subject: [PATCH 10/10] cpufreq: mvebu: Use generic platdev driver In-Reply-To: <20160425125605.GG6104@vireshk-i7> References: <6893237.FoNPbfW3DC@wuerfel> <20160425125605.GG6104@vireshk-i7> Message-ID: <17150729.NF4MViUffk@wuerfel> To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org List-Id: linux-arm-kernel.lists.infradead.org On Monday 25 April 2016 18:26:05 Viresh Kumar wrote: > On 25-04-16, 14:53, Arnd Bergmann wrote: > > On Monday 25 April 2016 08:30:41 Viresh Kumar wrote: > > > I realize that the ordering is fixed through the way that the kernel > > is linked, my worry is more about someone changing the code in some > > way because it's not obvious from reading the code that the > > dependency exists. If either the armada_xp_pmsu_cpufreq_init() > > initcall gets changed so it does not always get called, or the > > cpufreq_dt_platdev_init() initcall gets changed so it comes a little > > earlier, things will break. > > cpufreq-dt will just error out in that case, because it wouldn't find > any OPPs registered to the OPP-core. It *shouldn't* crash and if it > does, then we have a problem to fix. Ok. > > > The other thing that can happen is that armada_xp_pmsu_cpufreq_init() > > > call can fail. In that case, most of the times cpufreq-dt ->init() > > > will fail as well, so even that is fine for me. > > > > > > And, so I think we can keep this patch as is. > > > > What are the downsides of moving armada_xp_pmsu_cpufreq_init() > > into drivers/cpufreq? > > More special code :) Of course the special code still exists, it seems more like neither of us wants to have it in the portion of the kernel that he maintains ;-) Maybe the mvebu maintainers have a preference where they'd like the code to be, they are the ones that are most impacted if anything goes wrong. Arnd