Messages in this thread |  | | From | "Dunlap, Randy" <> | Subject | RE: USB init order dependencies. | Date | Tue, 7 Nov 2000 10:48:39 -0800 |
| |
> From: Russell King [mailto:rmk@arm.linux.org.uk] > > Dunlap, Randy writes: > > 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? > > No. As I said elsewhere in this thread, the USB OHCI chip is > not accessible > until other board-specific initialisation has happened. This > is done via an > initcall. Unfortunately, moving usb_init() back into > init/main.c will mean > that USB is again initialised before any initcalls, which > means for these > boards USB will be non-functional without additional changes > over and above just moving usb_init(). > > I hope this helps you understand the problem.
Yes, that does help.
David Woodhouse wrote: > But OHCI init isn't called from usb_init() is it?
No, it's not. It's another __initcall (module_init).
> The proposal is only to move the single call to usb_init() back into > init/main.c - not to move all the USB initcalls back.
Yes, your proposal is to init only "usbcore" from init/main.c. I still don't see a need to do this in test10. It's fixed now AFAIK.
~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/
|  |