On Monday, 6 August 2018 16:03:01 MSK Stefan Agner wrote: > On 04.08.2018 16:01, Dmitry Osipenko wrote: > > On Friday, 3 August 2018 20:24:56 MSK Linus Walleij wrote: > >> On Thu, Aug 2, 2018 at 1:31 PM Stefan Agner <ste...@agner.ch> wrote: > >> > A while back at least using those init lists were not well received > >> > even > >> > for GPIO/pinctrl drivers: > >> > > >> > https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/CACRpkdYk0zW12qNXgOstTLmdVDYacu0Un+8quTN+J > >> > _az > >> > oic...@mail.gmail.com/T/#mf0596982324a6489b5537b0531ac5aed60a316ba > >> > >> You shouldn't listen too much to that guy he's not trustworthy. > > ;-) > > >> > I still think we should make an exception for GPIO/pinctrl and use > >> > earlier initcalls. Platform GPIO/pinctrl drivers provide basic > >> > infrastructure often used by many other drivers, we want to have them > >> > loaded early. It avoids unnecessary EPROBE_DEFER and hence probably > >> > even > >> > boots faster. > >> > >> When we have the pin control and GPIO at different initlevels it makes me > >> uneasy because I feel we have implicit init dependencies that seem more > >> than a little fragile. > > > > Yes, it is not very good. > > Btw, just noticed this now: > GPIO driver -> arch_initcall > pinctrl driver -> subsys_initcall
I'm not sure what you're talking about, it's the other way around in the patches.
