lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2000]   [Nov]   [7]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
From
SubjectRE: USB init order dependencies.
Date
> 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/

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2005-03-22 12:45    [W:0.029 / U:6.360 seconds]
©2003-2018 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site