From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from e32.co.us.ibm.com (e32.co.us.ibm.com [32.97.110.150]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher CAMELLIA256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by lists.ozlabs.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id CCB421A0063 for ; Fri, 26 Feb 2016 03:44:38 +1100 (AEDT) Received: from localhost by e32.co.us.ibm.com with IBM ESMTP SMTP Gateway: Authorized Use Only! Violators will be prosecuted for from ; Thu, 25 Feb 2016 09:44:35 -0700 Received: from b03cxnp07028.gho.boulder.ibm.com (b03cxnp07028.gho.boulder.ibm.com [9.17.130.15]) by d03dlp02.boulder.ibm.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 776143E4003F for ; Thu, 25 Feb 2016 09:44:32 -0700 (MST) Received: from d03av01.boulder.ibm.com (d03av01.boulder.ibm.com [9.17.195.167]) by b03cxnp07028.gho.boulder.ibm.com (8.14.9/8.14.9/NCO v10.0) with ESMTP id u1PGiWeK27394158 for ; Thu, 25 Feb 2016 09:44:32 -0700 Received: from d03av01.boulder.ibm.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by d03av01.boulder.ibm.com (8.14.4/8.14.4/NCO v10.0 AVout) with ESMTP id u1PGiWvh022764 for ; Thu, 25 Feb 2016 09:44:32 -0700 Reply-To: manoj@linux.vnet.ibm.com Subject: Re: [PATCH v5 15/18] cxl: Parse device tree and create cxl device(s) at boot References: <1456244519-18934-1-git-send-email-fbarrat@linux.vnet.ibm.com> <1456244519-18934-16-git-send-email-fbarrat@linux.vnet.ibm.com> <56CE0F71.60404@linux.vnet.ibm.com> <56CEFF5B.8010000@linux.vnet.ibm.com> To: Frederic Barrat , linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org From: Manoj Kumar Message-ID: <56CF2F86.70102@linux.vnet.ibm.com> Date: Thu, 25 Feb 2016 10:44:54 -0600 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <56CEFF5B.8010000@linux.vnet.ibm.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed List-Id: Linux on PowerPC Developers Mail List List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Fred: Thanks for the clarification. Reviewed-by: Manoj Kumar --- Manoj Kumar On 2/25/2016 7:19 AM, Frederic Barrat wrote: > > > Le 24/02/2016 21:15, Manoj Kumar a écrit : >> On 2/23/2016 10:21 AM, Frederic Barrat wrote: >>> +module_init(cxl_base_init); >> >> Is this a remnant from when there were two modules? >> Do you really need two module_init() calls (can't one be called from the >> other)? >> What is the tear-down portion of this (module_exit)? > > No, this is not a left-over from the previous 2-module implementation of > the cxl driver. > The file base.c is not part of the "normal" cxl driver. It is either > part of the kernel if the cxl driver is a module or configured in the > kernel. Or it is discarded if cxl is not even a module. So code in that > file is either in the kernel or it's not even compiled. That was already > the case on bare-metal. > Code in module_init() is executed when the kernel boots and it is not > going away. > > Fred