Hi Linus, On 10/23/2015 07:44 AM, Sören Brinkmann wrote: > On Fri, 2015-10-23 at 07:31AM +0200, Mike Looijmans wrote: >> On 22-10-15 18:07, Sören Brinkmann wrote: >>> Hi Mike, >>> >>> On Thu, 2015-10-22 at 01:30PM +0200, Mike Looijmans wrote: >>>> Supplying pinmux configuration for e.g. gpio pins leads to deferred >>>> probes because the pinctrl device is probed much later than gpio. >>>> Move the init call to a much earlier stage so it probes before the >>>> devices that may need it. >>>> >>>> Signed-off-by: Mike Looijmans <mike.looijm...@topic.nl> >>> >>> in general, the change should be OK, but neither on zc702 nor zc706 do I >>> see a difference in respect to deferred probes. With and without the >>> patch I see: >>> root@zynq:~# dmesg | grep -i defer >>> [ 0.097021] zynq-gpio e000a000.gpio: could not find pctldev for node >>> /amba/slcr@f8000000/pinctrl@700/gpio0-default, deferring probe >>> root@zynq:~# >>> >>> If you have a case this patch improves things though, feel free to add my >>> Tested-by: Sören Brinkmann <soren.brinkm...@xilinx.com> >>> >> >> On the Florida boards there are i2c controlled clocks, power supplies and >> reset signals. Replacing the Cadence I2C controller with a GPIO-bitbang >> controller solved the I2C problems but caused a storm of dozens of deferred >> probes because of the pinmux driver arriving even after the first probe >> attempt of the i2c bus driver. Moving the pinmux driver to an earlier stage >> solved that problem neatly, now the "zynq-pinctrl 700.pinctrl: zynq pinctrl >> initialized" message appears after the OCM driver. > > OK, makes sense. Thanks for the background. > >> Judging from your comment the GPIO driver still probes earlier (I don't have >> any GPIO-only pinmuxes yet), so maybe we should amend the patch to probe >> even earlier. The pinmux driver doesn't depend on anything, so it can >> potentially probe very early. What do you think? > > I'm pretty neutral on this one :) Hasn't the probe deferral mechanism > been introduced to avoid having to create ordering through the initcall > stages? But I agree, having the probe deferral notices is not particularly > pretty. So, I'd definitely not oppose changing this. > Though, there is one dependency on the SLCR regmap, but that is initialized > fairly early.
Any comment on this one? Thanks, Michal -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
