From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: wsa@the-dreams.de (Wolfram Sang) Date: Fri, 18 Oct 2013 08:32:10 +0100 Subject: getting rid of subsys_initcall usage? (was: Re: [PATCH RESEND] i2c: designware: use module_platform_driver) In-Reply-To: <20131008221056.GW8313@atomide.com> References: <1376987548-12366-1-git-send-email-zhangfei.gao@linaro.org> <20130828095706.GH4086@katana> <20130830054858.GR7656@atomide.com> <20130830082712.GT7656@atomide.com> <20131008205304.GA29121@katana> <20131008221056.GW8313@atomide.com> Message-ID: <20131018073210.GA3059@katana> To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org List-Id: linux-arm-kernel.lists.infradead.org > Well it should be pretty trivial to update drivers to use deferred > probing. Maybe some spatch to check for that in driver probes would > help getting an idea how many might be affected? That's what I am trying to say. It surely is easy to fix the drivers, once we know there is something in need of fixing. My question was if there is common sense to simply risk breaking things and fix them later (then I'd apply patches switching from subsys_initcall to module_init right away), or if we can gather ideas how to minimize the impact of regressions (before applying such patches). -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 836 bytes Desc: Digital signature URL: