[PATCH 3/8] gpio: zynq: Shift zynq_gpio_init() to subsys_initcall level
From: Linus Walleij <hidden>
Date: 2017-08-22 13:02:33
Also in:
linux-gpio, lkml
On Mon, Aug 14, 2017 at 4:15 PM, Michal Simek [off-list ref] wrote:
quoted
Can't you just move it all the way to device_initcall and simply use the standard module init macros? builtin_platform_driver(), module_platform_driver()?When I grep the kernel I see this [linux](master)$ git grep "^core_initcall" drivers/gpio/ | wc -l 1 [linux](master)$ git grep "^postcore_initcall" drivers/gpio/ | wc -l 12 [linux](master)$ git grep "^arch_initcall" drivers/gpio/ | wc -l 2 [linux](master)$ git grep "^subsys_initcall" drivers/gpio/ | wc -l 33 [linux](master)$ git grep "^device_initcall" drivers/gpio/ | wc -l 4 [linux](master)$ git grep "^core_initcall" drivers/pinctrl/ | wc -l 6 [linux](master)$ git grep "^postcore_initcall" drivers/pinctrl/ | wc -l 7 [linux](master)$ git grep "^arch_initcall" drivers/pinctrl/ | wc -l 62 [linux](master)$ git grep "^subsys_initcall" drivers/pinctrl/ | wc -l 12 [linux](master)$ git grep "^device_initcall" drivers/pinctrl/ | wc -l 0 Majority of gpio drivers are in subsys_initcall and pinctrl in arch_initcall.
The majority is likely wrong, we don't vote about what is the best code quality luckily :D You do not see a lot of device_initicall because in the majority of cases these come implicitly from module_platform_driver(), builtin_platform_driver_probe() or builtin_platform_driver() see include/linux/platform_device.h
It doesn't mean that I have strong opinion about doing this change. I have also read internal tracking system and it is not fully clear if this is fixing any issue rather than removing on deferring probe message.
I think you can make it into module_platform_driver() please try that approach. Yours, Linus Walleij