From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Maxime Ripard Subject: Re: [PATCH 3/4] simplefb: Change simplefb_init from module_init to fs_initcall Date: Thu, 13 Nov 2014 11:42:03 +0100 Message-ID: <20141113104203.GF20972@lukather> References: <1415830124-28787-1-git-send-email-hdegoede@redhat.com> <1415830124-28787-3-git-send-email-hdegoede@redhat.com> <20141113085238.GE20972@lukather> <546478B5.2040002@redhat.com> Reply-To: linux-sunxi-/JYPxA39Uh5TLH3MbocFFw@public.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha1; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="yRA+Bmk8aPhU85Qt" Return-path: Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: List-Post: , List-Help: , List-Archive: , List-Unsubscribe: , To: Grant Likely Cc: Hans de Goede , Tomi Valkeinen , Stephen Warren , Jean-Christophe Plagniol-Villard , Rob Herring , Luc Verhaegen , Mike Turquette , David Herrmann , Geert Uytterhoeven , "linux-fbdev-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org" , "linux-arm-kernel-IAPFreCvJWM7uuMidbF8XUB+6BGkLq7r@public.gmane.org" , devicetree , linux-sunxi List-Id: devicetree@vger.kernel.org --yRA+Bmk8aPhU85Qt Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On Thu, Nov 13, 2014 at 10:29:52AM +0000, Grant Likely wrote: > On Thu, Nov 13, 2014 at 9:24 AM, Hans de Goede wrot= e: > > On 11/13/2014 09:52 AM, Maxime Ripard wrote: > >>> +/* > >>> + * While this can be a module, if builtin it's most likely the conso= le > >>> + * So let's leave module_exit but move module_init to an earlier pla= ce > >>> + */ > >> > >> Not really related to this patch itself, but do we want to support > >> simplefb as a module? It seems like it's going to be most of the time > >> broken. > > > > A valid point, my mean reasoning here is that some may see not being ab= le to > > use it as a module as a regression, so I just kept things as is, but I = do > > agree that it is advisable to just build it in. >=20 > Like a lot of things, if it is made a modules, and it breaks for the > user, the user gets to keep the pieces. There are potentially some > valid scenarios where it is fine to have it as a module. I don't > recommend changing this unless is actually starts causing problems. I don't really agree here. If it's broken because the clocks, reset, memory, or whatever resource has been reclaimed by the kernel before the module even had a chance to probe, the only thing that the user will get is that there's no chance it's ever going to work, and that it's just unreliable. If we know that it's going to break, and that there's no way it can be reliable (as in on all the SoCs reliable), keeping it as a module is just asking for trouble. Maxime --=20 Maxime Ripard, Free Electrons Embedded Linux, Kernel and Android engineering http://free-electrons.com --yRA+Bmk8aPhU85Qt Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc" Content-Description: Digital signature -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1 iQIcBAEBAgAGBQJUZIr7AAoJEBx+YmzsjxAgSccP/RI59EUGactEAMDhskesOqwa psXnHuoo/zBauzyWFJUXD1Jv9SglUghzjkDj5Hy+iaxt6VTZr1iMVHZTfm3o1gE3 lBH97NFLk5S4MzCOTb7hI2lCXtFLd88Jq8BblL356HFjGC9k9+ofTSXYrGAhayNy 3zKmRA2mfsA1VWo+8W6EFwU7VpQoR64s1T2Cx79GHPGFIvfixZKclDwKPc2Jv4FE 9bE95nQxet/8gaG20e58uttyi7rheXahj76hvd7JANvONrbaFYE/AqLV8VzCd+gP 7HcKtSpF1QB88vCYDvuMZiz1JvZRlf+x/CZdfMV55ev3DbYrClVwQ/YK5cG/9nMr Wojv5BIIX26c7epl8vLytUrCWnuQblUG9Kit+Ud2TLiiRJuxFG/+GUNCM56avleO 5XtFZ96w0OKhXqAUzbP3/GDmhlTgNYB1JXX/yCZlWrpcZC9ZYu8eXkow5NCQT/E5 NkMhW8wrpchhFrRf+J5qT8+NPgawe684RAM7giVYnoJ7Tg/ITQiSJoDTemEJ9fAz hUAtAshtYjVN02/UdGCfoIonmSd4drw/5lCHRhB2DAhAQHCryyRFUrg63F+7ZWi6 NXCyvBT5ODlkGk0iktXyB7DkhWc1vX+Qi6ofCj3YTyfLLQZ/X9NethT5FvG9S2cS yqSMACWqhQuySMRtlxDk =LOgH -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --yRA+Bmk8aPhU85Qt--