[lkml]   [2000]   [Nov]   [4]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
SubjectRE: USB init order dependencies.
While Jeff and I basically agree on the short-term
solution (if one is still needed, altho I'm not aware of
any init order problems in USB in 2.4.0-test10), my
recollection of Linus's preference (without
looking it up) is to remove the calls from init/main.c
and to use __initcalls.


> -----Original Message-----
> From: Jeff Garzik []
> Sent: Saturday, November 04, 2000 12:25 AM
> To: Russell King
> Cc: Dunlap, Randy; 'David Woodhouse';;
> Subject: Re: USB init order dependencies.
> Russell King wrote:
> >
> > Dunlap, Randy writes:
> > > David is entitled to his opinion (IMO).
> > > And I dislike this patch, as he and I have already discussed.
> > >
> > > Short of fixing the link order, I like Jeff's suggestion
> > > better (if it actually works, that is): go back to the
> > > way it was a few months ago by calling usb_init()
> > > from init/main.c and making the module_init(usb_init);
> > > in usb.c conditional (#ifdef MODULE).
> >
> > However, that breaks the OHCI driver on ARM. Unless we're
> going to start
> > putting init calls back into init/main.c so that we can
> guarantee the order
> > of init calls which Linus will not like, you will end up
> with a lot of ARM
> > guys complaining.
> >
> > Linus, your opinion would be helpful at this point.
> Back when some of the initial USB initcall stuff started appearing,
> there were similar discussions, similar problems, and similar
> solutions. I was also wondering how fbdev (which needs to give you a
> console ASAP) would work with initcalls, etc. At the time (~6 months
> ago?), Linus' opinion was basically "if the link order
> hacking starts to
> get ugly, just put it in init/main.c" So, Randy really should be
> calling the quoted text above "Linus' suggestion" ;-)
> Putting a call into init/main.c isn't a long term solution, but it
> should get us there for 2.4.x... init/main.c is also the
> best solution
> for ugly cross-directory link order dependencies. I would
> say the link
> order of foo.o's in linux/Makefile is the most delicate/fragile of all
> the Makefiles... touching linux/Makefile link order this
> close to 2.4.0
> is asking for trouble. Compared to that, adding a few lines to
> init/main.c isn't so bad.
> Jeff

To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to
Please read the FAQ at

 \ /
  Last update: 2005-03-22 12:45    [W:0.063 / U:0.292 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site