Re: [PATCH 14/23] clocksource: increase initcall priority

[Daniel Walker <dwalker@mvista.com>]

On Thu, 2007-02-01 at 00:23 +0100, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
> Daniel,
> 
> On Wed, 2007-01-31 at 14:47 -0800, Daniel Walker wrote:
> > > So don't assume any platform doesn't use clocksource initcalls.
> > 
> > What does your OMAP clocksource do now ? I thought one of the changes
> > that you made was to have both 32k and mpu both registered ..
> 
> It is up to the clocksource driver, when the clocksource_register() call
> is done. This may happen in early boot as well as after initializing
> some other things first.
> 
> Johns clocksource code works with ARM which does the register call in
> timer_init() as well as with some other hardware which gets initialized
> late in the boot process.
> 
> clocksource_initcall is simply superfluid. 
> 


My position has always been that clocksources should be registered as
early as possible .. The fs_initcall() usage is a compromise stemming
from early resistance that John, and you gave to moving the clocks up in
the initcall sequence. the clocksource_initcall() exists only to allow
the clocks easily be raised if it was needed ..

I'm glad that you, John, and myself have come to a consensus on the
issue offline ..

Daniel 

-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/