On Thu, Sep 06, 2018 at 01:21:01PM +0200, Lukas Wunner wrote: > On Thu, Sep 06, 2018 at 02:07:56PM +0300, Mika Westerberg wrote: > > On Thu, Sep 06, 2018 at 01:00:49PM +0200, Lukas Wunner wrote: > > > On Thu, Sep 06, 2018 at 01:36:02PM +0300, Mika Westerberg wrote: > > > > On Thu, Sep 06, 2018 at 10:13:37AM +0200, Lukas Wunner wrote: > > > > > So with this patch, you rely on the linker ordering nhi_init() after > > > > > ir_dev_scope_init(), however to the best of my knowledge the link > > > > > order is not guaranteed. > > > > > > > > What says that? > > > > > > Within the same initcall level, the ordering is determined by the Makefile > > > AFAIK. Someone changes the Makefile, your dependency scheme falls apart. > > > > There are other drivers doing the same so they would fail as well. It is > > common practice AFAIK. > > That doesn't make it a *good* practice.
It is good enough for our case. > > > > > Looking at commit acb40d841257, which started this, I'm wondering > > > > > why you did not simply export tbnet_init() and call it from the > > > > > thunderbolt driver after the property stuff has been fully set up? > > > > > After all, thunderbolt-net is useless without thunderbolt or am I > > > > > missing something? Then you could revert back to module_init(). > > > > > > > > The same reason you don't call PCI driver functions from PCI core. It > > > > makes absolutely zero sense. > > > > > > > > Thunderbolt is bus and provides driver API to drivers. We hopefully are > > > > getting other service drivers (say SCSI over TBT) that are going to be > > > > use the same interfaces. > > > > > > Then add a blocking notifier chain into which these service drivers can > > > hook. Other buses have that as well. > > > > It is really too complex to add notifier just for that. This works fine > > and is not against any kernel principles I am aware of. > > Well, there's a difference between "it works and gets the job done, > let's move on" and "let's try to find a solution that fixes not just > this use case but potentially benefits others as well". > > FWIW, what I had in mind is a blocking notifier chain that gets called > when a bus registers or unregisters. TB service drivers would then check > if it's tb_bus_type and start initialization. Like I said, I think it is too complex. If we ever need to change the initcall level third time (which I doubt) we can start thinking about more complex solutions.
