Messages in this thread |  | | From | "Dunlap, Randy" <> | Subject | RE: USB init order dependencies. | Date | Mon, 6 Nov 2000 15:53:26 -0800 |
| |
Randy.Dunlap wrote: > > 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. > Russell King wrote: > The problem for ARM is that Linux does a lot of the initialisation for > some machines,
but not for ARM ?
> which basically means the hardware isn't setup > for access > to the USB device if the USB initialisation was placed in init/main.c > (this initialisation is done by the very first initcall on > ARM). However, > that said, we may be able to get away with only adding > hw_sa1100_init() > before the USB call, but this is only one family of the ARM > machine types.
I'm not following your argument very well. I've read it and reread it several times. Does adding a call to usb_init() in init/main.c cause USB to be init 2 times? I'm not complaining or arguing against you, just trying to understand better.
> BTW, I've long lost track of what the original problem that > sparked off > this thread was, does someone have a quick reference to it? (please > reply in private mail). Thanks.
There were several threads but I can't find the "original" one right now. IIRC, it was simply that CONFIG_USB=y and CONFIG_USB_*=m (any USB except usbcore built as modules) caused depmod problems, but that could be incorrect also.
~Randy
- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
|  |