From: Bill Gatliff <bgat@billgatliff•com>
To: Benjamin Herrenschmidt <benh@kernel•crashing.org>
Cc: Linux/PPC Development <linuxppc-dev@ozlabs•org>,
linux-embedded <linux-embedded@vger•kernel.org>
Subject: Re: A better way to sequence driver initialization?
Date: Sat, 10 Apr 2010 08:35:41 -0500 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <4BC07EAD.9020307@billgatliff.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <1270889597.6865.107.camel@pasglop>
Benjamin Herrenschmidt wrote:
> On Fri, 2010-04-09 at 14:23 -0500, Bill Gatliff wrote:
>
>> My recent post, "Requesting a GPIO that hasn't been registered yet", and
>> Anton's reply thereto (thanks, Anton!) on linuxppc-dev got me thinking
>> about the problem of dependencies between devices in different classes,
>> and/or between drivers/devices in general. I'd like to float an idea to
>> see if it's worth pursuing.
>>
>
> I'd rather do things a bit more explicitely and less prone to break
> existing stuff... something along the lines of, first defining a variant
> of the initcalls to enable that "multithreaded" stuff, along with an
> explicit wait_for_service("subsys:hid"); for example.
>
> One could also expose service deps via the module info, thus delaying
> module init, or things like that (in fact, initcalls could even come
> with a list of dependencies).
>
The general problem with your approach is that the module in question
might not know what services it needs to wait for.
Specific to my situation, the gpio-led code doesn't have any way of
knowing that it needs to wait until my pca953x i2c devices have all been
installed so that the gpio pin I have specified even exists. And short
of setting up some kind of table in the board-specific code (or device
tree, actually), I don't know how to communicate such a dependency
without touching the generic gpio-led code--- which I'm trying to avoid.
I just want gpio-led to try again if the gpio pin it has been provided
can't be requested yet. And I can see the need for similar behavior in
several other of my drivers, hence the desire to generalize things a
bit. I'm pretty sure my approach is only half-baked, but it does seem
to avoid the need to touch a bunch of existing code--- especially to add
board-specific dependencies. It just give the system a tool to sort
things out on its own.
I do think your overall criticism is valid, though.
b.g.
--
Bill Gatliff
bgat@billgatliff•com
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2010-04-10 13:34 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 17+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2010-04-09 19:23 A better way to sequence driver initialization? Bill Gatliff
2010-04-10 3:54 ` Bill Gatliff
2010-04-10 3:59 ` Bill Gatliff
2010-04-10 4:19 ` Bill Gatliff
2010-04-10 5:29 ` Grant Likely
2010-04-10 13:56 ` Bill Gatliff
2010-04-10 8:53 ` Benjamin Herrenschmidt
2010-04-10 13:35 ` Bill Gatliff [this message]
2010-04-10 23:39 ` Paul Mundt
2010-04-10 23:47 ` Grant Likely
2010-04-11 1:33 ` Bill Gatliff
2010-04-11 1:47 ` Paul Mundt
2010-04-11 3:30 ` Bill Gatliff
2010-04-11 1:31 ` Bill Gatliff
2010-04-11 7:26 ` Benjamin Herrenschmidt
2010-04-11 7:18 ` Benjamin Herrenschmidt
2010-04-11 7:15 ` Benjamin Herrenschmidt
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=4BC07EAD.9020307@billgatliff.com \
--to=bgat@billgatliff$(echo .)com \
--cc=benh@kernel$(echo .)crashing.org \
--cc=linux-embedded@vger$(echo .)kernel.org \
--cc=linuxppc-dev@ozlabs$(echo .)org \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
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