lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2000]   [Nov]   [6]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
From
SubjectRE: USB init order dependencies.
Date
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/

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2005-03-22 12:45    [W:0.034 / U:3.900 seconds]
©2003-2018 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site