Messages in this thread | | | Date | Thu, 26 Jan 2017 10:26:56 +0100 | From | Takashi Iwai <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH RESEND] pinctrl: intel: Turn Baytrail support to tristate |
| |
On Thu, 26 Jan 2017 10:19:31 +0100, Mika Westerberg wrote: > > On Thu, Jan 26, 2017 at 09:55:36AM +0100, Linus Walleij wrote: > > On Wed, Jan 25, 2017 at 4:26 PM, Jean Delvare <jdelvare@suse.de> wrote: > > > > > The pinctrl-baytrail driver builds just fine as a module so give > > > users this option. > > > > > > Signed-off-by: Jean Delvare <jdelvare@suse.de> > > > Cc: Mika Westerberg <mika.westerberg@linux.intel.com> > > > Cc: Heikki Krogerus <heikki.krogerus@linux.intel.com> > > > Cc: Linus Walleij <linus.walleij@linaro.org> > > > --- > > > This was discussed almost one year ago, with no clear conclusion, but > > > also no evidence that the driver can't be built as a module. Is there > > > any way to push this forward? > > > > I see ACKs for this patch, but in my git I also have: > > > > commit 360943a8d26265825025b88da32961bd9ad4f7c6 > > pinctrl: baytrail: make it explicitly non-modular > > > > Acked by Mika. > > Heh, yeah we even removed possibility to unbind the driver with that > commit. Totally forgot that one. > > > So which one is it going to be? > > Good question. I'm fine with both but I would really like to get some > confirmation that turning the driver to module actually does not break > anything.
I guess it would break things on some machines if the module loading order isn't setup properly. For example, it's known that pinctrl-cherrytrail breaks MMC or others if it's loaded too lately. On distros, we often work around it by a specific module loading order in initrd.
But this doesn't mean that the modularization itself is wrong. It's merely a setup issue.
thanks,
Takashi
| |