Messages in this thread | | | Date | Fri, 17 Jan 2003 14:32:56 -0500 | From | Jeff Garzik <> | Subject | Re: Initcall / device model meltdown? |
| |
On Fri, Jan 17, 2003 at 07:23:56PM +0000, Russell King wrote: > 1. the device model requires a certain initialisation order. > 2. modules need to use module_init() which means the initialisation order > is link-order dependent, despite our multi-level initialisation system. > > Obviously one solution would be to spread the drivers for this > multifunction chip throughout the kernel tree (ie, by function not > by device) so the touchscreen driver would live under drivers/input. > > However, then we need to make sure that the multifunction chip's > bus type is initialised before any of the other subsystems, and of > course, the bus type is initialised using module_init() since it > lives in a module... > > I think we need to re-think what we're doing with the initialisation > handling and the device model before these sorts of problems get out > of hand.
IMO this link order business is a problem that's existed for ages, it's unrelated to the device model, and adding seven levels of initcalls merely hid this problem a little bit.
Back when I was doing fbdev stuff, I just gave up and did things "the old way", a la
#ifdef MODULE module_init(my_driver); #endif
and then call my_driver from other code, when it is built into the kernel, overriding link order.
Not a great solution, I know. My preferred solution has always been to explicitly list the dependencies, so a build-time tool can figure out the link order automagically.
Jeff
- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
| |