From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Return-Path: Date: Wed, 19 Sep 2018 14:17:35 -0600 From: Keith Busch To: Bjorn Helgaas Cc: Linux PCI , Bjorn Helgaas , Benjamin Herrenschmidt , Sinan Kaya , Thomas Tai , poza@codeaurora.org, Lukas Wunner , Christoph Hellwig , Mika Westerberg Subject: Re: [PATCHv3 01/10] PCI/portdrv: Use subsys_init for service drivers Message-ID: <20180919201735.GD28310@localhost.localdomain> References: <20180918235702.26573-1-keith.busch@intel.com> <20180918235702.26573-2-keith.busch@intel.com> <20180919162846.GB243610@bhelgaas-glaptop.roam.corp.google.com> <20180919180003.GC28310@localhost.localdomain> <20180919194029.GA261184@bhelgaas-glaptop.roam.corp.google.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii In-Reply-To: <20180919194029.GA261184@bhelgaas-glaptop.roam.corp.google.com> List-ID: On Wed, Sep 19, 2018 at 02:40:29PM -0500, Bjorn Helgaas wrote: > On Wed, Sep 19, 2018 at 12:00:03PM -0600, Keith Busch wrote: > > On Wed, Sep 19, 2018 at 11:28:46AM -0500, Bjorn Helgaas wrote: > > > On Tue, Sep 18, 2018 at 05:56:53PM -0600, Keith Busch wrote: > > > Since none of the service drivers can be modules, I don't think it > > > buys us much to make their init functions initcalls. Can we > > > explicitly call them from the pcie_portdrv_probe() path? > > > > It's actually during pcie_portdrv_init that the services need to be > > initialized if we're going this way. Do you think the following is > > better? The initialization order should be more clear to the reader at > > the cost of more code than init call magic, but I'm okay having this > > done either way. > > Yes. More code, less magic seems like the right tradeoff to me. Sounds good. Will send a new version of the set using this method, plus merging up to the current pci/hotplug and the documentation updates. From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.3 required=3.0 tests=HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS, MAILING_LIST_MULTI,SPF_PASS,USER_AGENT_MUTT autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.0 Received: from mail.kernel.org (mail.kernel.org [198.145.29.99]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 143ABC433F4 for ; Wed, 19 Sep 2018 20:16:03 +0000 (UTC) Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [209.132.180.67]) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id BBA40208A3 for ; Wed, 19 Sep 2018 20:16:02 +0000 (UTC) DMARC-Filter: OpenDMARC Filter v1.3.2 mail.kernel.org BBA40208A3 Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; dmarc=fail (p=none dis=none) header.from=intel.com Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; spf=none smtp.mailfrom=linux-pci-owner@vger.kernel.org Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1731540AbeITBzd (ORCPT ); Wed, 19 Sep 2018 21:55:33 -0400 Received: from mga03.intel.com ([134.134.136.65]:61639 "EHLO mga03.intel.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1728111AbeITBzd (ORCPT ); Wed, 19 Sep 2018 21:55:33 -0400 X-Amp-Result: UNSCANNABLE X-Amp-File-Uploaded: False Received: from orsmga001.jf.intel.com ([10.7.209.18]) by orsmga103.jf.intel.com with ESMTP/TLS/DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384; 19 Sep 2018 13:15:50 -0700 X-ExtLoop1: 1 X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.53,395,1531810800"; d="scan'208";a="92001201" Received: from unknown (HELO localhost.localdomain) ([10.232.112.44]) by orsmga001.jf.intel.com with ESMTP; 19 Sep 2018 13:15:41 -0700 Date: Wed, 19 Sep 2018 14:17:35 -0600 From: Keith Busch To: Bjorn Helgaas Cc: Linux PCI , Bjorn Helgaas , Benjamin Herrenschmidt , Sinan Kaya , Thomas Tai , poza@codeaurora.org, Lukas Wunner , Christoph Hellwig , Mika Westerberg Subject: Re: [PATCHv3 01/10] PCI/portdrv: Use subsys_init for service drivers Message-ID: <20180919201735.GD28310@localhost.localdomain> References: <20180918235702.26573-1-keith.busch@intel.com> <20180918235702.26573-2-keith.busch@intel.com> <20180919162846.GB243610@bhelgaas-glaptop.roam.corp.google.com> <20180919180003.GC28310@localhost.localdomain> <20180919194029.GA261184@bhelgaas-glaptop.roam.corp.google.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20180919194029.GA261184@bhelgaas-glaptop.roam.corp.google.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.9.1 (2017-09-22) Sender: linux-pci-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-pci@vger.kernel.org Message-ID: <20180919201735.JlGJFF2S0D5t0Cldu8wzzpyRt1gvcZSFRCUtnFVGobY@z> On Wed, Sep 19, 2018 at 02:40:29PM -0500, Bjorn Helgaas wrote: > On Wed, Sep 19, 2018 at 12:00:03PM -0600, Keith Busch wrote: > > On Wed, Sep 19, 2018 at 11:28:46AM -0500, Bjorn Helgaas wrote: > > > On Tue, Sep 18, 2018 at 05:56:53PM -0600, Keith Busch wrote: > > > Since none of the service drivers can be modules, I don't think it > > > buys us much to make their init functions initcalls. Can we > > > explicitly call them from the pcie_portdrv_probe() path? > > > > It's actually during pcie_portdrv_init that the services need to be > > initialized if we're going this way. Do you think the following is > > better? The initialization order should be more clear to the reader at > > the cost of more code than init call magic, but I'm okay having this > > done either way. > > Yes. More code, less magic seems like the right tradeoff to me. Sounds good. Will send a new version of the set using this method, plus merging up to the current pci/hotplug and the documentation updates.