From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: linux@arm.linux.org.uk (Russell King - ARM Linux) Date: Tue, 22 Jan 2013 10:41:07 +0000 Subject: [PATCH v7 09/15] gpio: pl061: set initcall level to module init In-Reply-To: References: <1358494279-16503-1-git-send-email-haojian.zhuang@linaro.org> <1358494279-16503-10-git-send-email-haojian.zhuang@linaro.org> <1358785488.6590.33.camel@hornet> Message-ID: <20130122104107.GJ23505@n2100.arm.linux.org.uk> To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org List-Id: linux-arm-kernel.lists.infradead.org On Tue, Jan 22, 2013 at 10:42:11AM +0100, Linus Walleij wrote: > On Mon, Jan 21, 2013 at 5:24 PM, Pawel Moll wrote: > > > Hm. Doesn't this make the MMCI probing depending on the module_init > > order? As in: wouldn't it make the mmci probe completely fail (not even > > defer it) if it was called before the pl061? In that case even your, > > Linus, hack with inverting the CD status wouldn't work... > > According to Haojian it works, but for sure the MMCI driver *should* > (on the eternal list of SHOULDDO) bail out and return any Rather than talking about what should and should not, why not look at the code - it only takes a few moments to check what the behaviour would be. And it is correct - errors are correctly propagated out of the probe function. That's hardly surprising given who's supposed to be the maintainer of that driver.