From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1751781Ab2FLILv (ORCPT ); Tue, 12 Jun 2012 04:11:51 -0400 Received: from mail-ee0-f46.google.com ([74.125.83.46]:42221 "EHLO mail-ee0-f46.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751185Ab2FLILs (ORCPT ); Tue, 12 Jun 2012 04:11:48 -0400 Message-ID: <4FD6F9C1.1020305@linaro.org> Date: Tue, 12 Jun 2012 09:11:45 +0100 From: Lee Jones User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:11.0) Gecko/20120410 Thunderbird/11.0.1 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Linus Walleij CC: grant.likely@secretlab.ca, linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linus.walleij@stericsson.com, arnd@arndb.de, Samuel Ortiz Subject: Re: [PATCH 06/14] mfd: Initialise the DB8500 PRCMU driver at core_initcall time References: <1339428307-3850-1-git-send-email-lee.jones@linaro.org> <1339428307-3850-7-git-send-email-lee.jones@linaro.org> In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On 11/06/12 22:01, Linus Walleij wrote: > On Mon, Jun 11, 2012 at 5:24 PM, Lee Jones wrote: > >> Now the AB8500 has its own IRQ domain > > But that does not appear until patch 8 in this series? Are the patches in > the wrong order? Or does this need rewording? The patches are in the correct order. This needs to be done _before_ we provide the AB8500 with its own domain. I guess the line should reference future tense. We are only talking two patches in the future, is it that important? I will change the wording slightly if it is. >> it needs to be initialised earlier >> in the boot sequence. As the AB8500 relies on the DB8500 PRCMU we need to >> reflect this change for the PRCMU driver too. > > Hm what shall we do when we run out of initlevels? I think this was the > kind of thing that deferred probe should solve. Usually changing this kind > of thing has side effects so I'm a bit hesitant. Nothing seems to be broken by it. My Snowball still comes up and everything that worked before continues to do so. How would you like me to take this forward? -- Lee Jones Linaro ST-Ericsson Landing Team Lead M: +44 77 88 633 515 Linaro.org │ Open source software for ARM SoCs Follow Linaro: Facebook | Twitter | Blog From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: lee.jones@linaro.org (Lee Jones) Date: Tue, 12 Jun 2012 09:11:45 +0100 Subject: [PATCH 06/14] mfd: Initialise the DB8500 PRCMU driver at core_initcall time In-Reply-To: References: <1339428307-3850-1-git-send-email-lee.jones@linaro.org> <1339428307-3850-7-git-send-email-lee.jones@linaro.org> Message-ID: <4FD6F9C1.1020305@linaro.org> To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org List-Id: linux-arm-kernel.lists.infradead.org On 11/06/12 22:01, Linus Walleij wrote: > On Mon, Jun 11, 2012 at 5:24 PM, Lee Jones wrote: > >> Now the AB8500 has its own IRQ domain > > But that does not appear until patch 8 in this series? Are the patches in > the wrong order? Or does this need rewording? The patches are in the correct order. This needs to be done _before_ we provide the AB8500 with its own domain. I guess the line should reference future tense. We are only talking two patches in the future, is it that important? I will change the wording slightly if it is. >> it needs to be initialised earlier >> in the boot sequence. As the AB8500 relies on the DB8500 PRCMU we need to >> reflect this change for the PRCMU driver too. > > Hm what shall we do when we run out of initlevels? I think this was the > kind of thing that deferred probe should solve. Usually changing this kind > of thing has side effects so I'm a bit hesitant. Nothing seems to be broken by it. My Snowball still comes up and everything that worked before continues to do so. How would you like me to take this forward? -- Lee Jones Linaro ST-Ericsson Landing Team Lead M: +44 77 88 633 515 Linaro.org ? Open source software for ARM SoCs Follow Linaro: Facebook | Twitter | Blog