Re: [pm-wip/cpufreq][PATCH 3/3] OMAP2+: cpufreq: do lateinit

[Kevin Hilman <khilman@ti.com>]

Nishanth Menon <nm@ti.com> writes:

> Since we do module_init, cpufreq initializes before power late_init
> where many of the required data structures are registered. 

What exactly are the dependencies here?  The only thing I see is the
dependency on omap2_get_mpuss_device(), and those devices should be
created as a postcore_initcall.

If there are other dependencies, they're probably created a side effect
of your earlier patches where you moved stuff from the ->init hook
(which happens much later) into the initcall function.  Maybe that needs
a rethink?

> Move cpufreq init to late_initcall instead. Further CONFIG_CPU_FREQ on
> which the build depends is bool and does'nt support modules yet.
>
> Signed-off-by: Nishanth Menon <nm@ti.com>

If this works, it's only because of the link order defined by the
Makefile ordering since both are the same level of initcall.

When I move this driver to drivers/cpufreq, then the link order is less
obvious.

Kevin

> ---
>  arch/arm/mach-omap2/omap2plus-cpufreq.c |    2 +-
>  1 files changed, 1 insertions(+), 1 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/arch/arm/mach-omap2/omap2plus-cpufreq.c b/arch/arm/mach-omap2/omap2plus-cpufreq.c
> index 2177381..07c2ab9 100644
> --- a/arch/arm/mach-omap2/omap2plus-cpufreq.c
> +++ b/arch/arm/mach-omap2/omap2plus-cpufreq.c
> @@ -273,5 +273,5 @@ static void __exit omap_cpufreq_exit(void)
>  
>  MODULE_DESCRIPTION("cpufreq driver for OMAP2PLUS SOCs");
>  MODULE_LICENSE("GPL");
> -module_init(omap_cpufreq_init);
> +late_initcall(omap_cpufreq_init);
>  module_exit(omap_cpufreq_exit);