From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from sceptre.pobox.com (sceptre.pobox.com [207.106.133.20]) by ozlabs.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8AC38DDE1C for ; Tue, 11 Sep 2007 01:44:59 +1000 (EST) Date: Mon, 10 Sep 2007 10:44:43 -0500 From: Nathan Lynch To: Olof Johansson Subject: Re: [POWERPC] pasemi: Move pasemi_idle_init() to late_initcall() Message-ID: <20070910154443.GK32388@localdomain> References: <20070905020733.GA25900@lixom.net> <20070905020945.GF25900@lixom.net> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii In-Reply-To: <20070905020945.GF25900@lixom.net> Cc: linuxppc-dev@ozlabs.org, paulus@samba.org List-Id: Linux on PowerPC Developers Mail List List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Olof Johansson wrote: > commit 6a30bd1e2160e921a8fb051b472dfaf068f4f386 > Author: Olof Johansson > Date: Tue Sep 4 21:53:30 2007 -0500 > > [POWERPC] pasemi: Move pasemi_idle_init() to late_initcall() > > Move pasemi_idle_init() to be a late_initcall instead of being called from > setup_arch(). This way the cpufreq driver has a chance to initialize and > save away the boot time astate before we go to idle for the first time. The patch looks fine, but while I was reviewing this I noticed that the pasemi cpufreq code is bool in Kconfig, but it has stuff like module_init() etc in it. It's not hurting anything, but it did temporarily make me wonder "what happens if the cpufreq driver is modular"?