Re: getting rid of subsys_initcall usage?

[zhangfei <zhangfei.gao-QSEj5FYQhm4dnm+yROfE0A@public.gmane.org>]

On 10/09/2013 04:53 AM, Wolfram Sang wrote:
> On Fri, Aug 30, 2013 at 01:27:13AM -0700, Tony Lindgren wrote:
>> * zhangfei gao <zhangfei.gao-Re5JQEeQqe8AvxtiuMwx3w@public.gmane.org> [130829 23:36]:
>>> What about concerns from Wolfram:
>>> " Other people might be
>>> depending on subsys_initcall to get I2C active before they want to
>>> activate, say, PMICs. So, I fear regressions, since deferred probing
>>> might not be available in the needed places to avoid these regressions."
>>
>> There should not be any reason to get a PMIC activated
>> early on. The system should be booting already at that point,
>> and the PMIC related init can be done later on.
>
> Okay, here is a more concrete example:
>
> Consider the amplifier driver 'sound/soc/codecs/max9768.c'. Back then, unaware
> of deferred probing, I wrote the following code to get the GPIOs (which are
> optional):
>
> 	err = gpio_request_one(pdata->mute_gpio, GPIOF_INIT_HIGH, "MAX9768 Mute");
> 	max9768->mute_gpio = err ?: pdata->mute_gpio;
>
> And later in the process:
>
>          if (gpio_is_valid(max9768->mute_gpio)) {
>                  ret = snd_soc_add_codec_controls(codec, max9768_mute,
>                                  ARRAY_SIZE(max9768_mute));
>                  if (ret)
>                          return ret;
>          }
>
> So, the mute control will only be added if the gpio_request succeeded. On that
> particular board, the mute GPIO was wired to an I2C GPIO controller. If I now
> change the I2C (or GPIO) driver from subsys_initcall to module_init, then the
> gpio_request in the amplifier driver could hit -EPROBE_DEFER and the mute
> control will then disappear.

However, this may requires I2C, GPIO, pinctrl all use subsys_initcall.
-EPROBE_DEFER still be returned, if pinctrl happen to use 
module_platform_driver, which is most case in drivers/pinctrl/.

Yes, the driver can be fixed easily, yet I fear a
> number of regressions like this. Instead of people digging into why things
> disappear after a kernel update, I wonder if there is a way to guide users if
> this happens. I didn't have time for that, though, sadly. Still, it makes me
> wonder how easily we could shift from subsys_initcall to module_init, although
> I'd really love to get away from subsys_initcall in device drivers.
>

Thanks for clarify the concern.