From: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>
To: Vincent Chen <vincent.chen@sifive.com>, Anup Patel <anup@brainfault.org>
Cc: paul.walmsley@sifive.com, palmer@dabbelt.com,
aou@eecs.berkeley.edu, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
linux-riscv@lists.infradead.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] irqchip: let the probe of APLIC be earlier than IMSIC
Date: Mon, 05 Aug 2024 10:08:26 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <87sevj5r45.ffs@tglx> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <CABvJ_xgcbyQKa1+U1MC7cLEB-SUzzNaWqKdXFp+13mni0YSvNw@mail.gmail.com>
On Mon, Aug 05 2024 at 10:43, Vincent Chen wrote:
> On Fri, Aug 2, 2024 at 7:03 PM Anup Patel <anup@brainfault.org> wrote:
>> Secondly, changing compilation order in Makefile to influence
>> the probe order will not help in any way.
>>
> I was confused here. If possible, hope you can help me clarify it.
> The following is the backtrace of really_porbe() dumped by GDB.
> #0 0xffffffff8092318a in really_probe ()
> #1 0xffffffff80923516 in __driver_probe_device.part.0 ()
> #2 0xffffffff8057c856 in driver_probe_device ()
> #3 0xffffffff8057c9ba in __driver_attach ()
> #4 0xffffffff8057aaa4 in bus_for_each_dev ()
> #5 0xffffffff8057c3ea in driver_attach ()
> #6 0xffffffff8057bc4a in bus_add_driver ()
> #7 0xffffffff8057d75a in driver_register ()
> #8 0xffffffff8057e83c in __platform_driver_register ()
> #9 0xffffffff80a2455e in imsic_platform_driver_init ()
> #10 0xffffffff8000212c in do_one_initcall ()
> #11 0xffffffff80a01188 in kernel_init_freeable ()
> #12 0xffffffff80928d80 in kernel_init ()
>
> According to this result, the source to call really_probe is
> do_one_initcall(), regardless of whether it is APLIC or IMSIC. The
> do_one_initcall() function follows the placed order of the
> initialization functions in the __initcall6 section to invoke them.
> The compile order determines the order of the __initcall6 section.
> Therefore, I try to adjust the compile order to influence the probe
> order between IMSIC and APLIC. Do I misunderstand something?
There is no guarantee that this order is retained. The linker can freely
reorg the section. That's why we have deferred probing. It's neither a
bug nor a problem, so what are you trying to solve?
Thanks,
tglx
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2024-08-05 8:08 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 7+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2024-08-02 7:57 [PATCH] irqchip: let the probe of APLIC be earlier than IMSIC Vincent Chen
2024-08-02 10:55 ` Thomas Gleixner
2024-08-02 11:02 ` Anup Patel
2024-08-05 2:43 ` Vincent Chen
2024-08-05 8:08 ` Thomas Gleixner [this message]
2024-08-06 1:56 ` Vincent Chen
2024-08-06 3:14 ` Jessica Clarke
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=87sevj5r45.ffs@tglx \
--to=tglx@linutronix.de \
--cc=anup@brainfault.org \
--cc=aou@eecs.berkeley.edu \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-riscv@lists.infradead.org \
--cc=palmer@dabbelt.com \
--cc=paul.walmsley@sifive.com \
--cc=vincent.chen@sifive.com \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox