[i2c] [PATCH, RFC] Earlier I2C initialization
khali at linux-fr.org
Wed Jun 11 22:54:16 CEST 2008
On Wed, 11 Jun 2008 13:27:09 -0700, David Brownell wrote:
> On Wednesday 11 June 2008, Jean Delvare wrote:
> > On Thu, 12 Jun 2008 08:13:09 +1200, Ryan Mallon wrote:
> > > As David suggested, if i2c is needed early
> > > in enough cases, why not just move it early in the link order? My patch
> > > was just an alternative approach which mimics the current behaviour, but
> > > makes it possible to get any i2c driver early. Why not just mark all of
> > > the drivers/busses that get used on embedded devices as subsys_initcall,
> > > just in case somebody needs them early?
> > Because this is an abuse of subsys_initcall? I guess that was
> > acceptable when only a couple drivers were doing that, but making it
> > official sounds bad.
> How would it be an abuse? On those systems, I2C is a "system bus"
> and needs to be initialized early for the same reasons PCI gets set
> up very early on PC hardware.
But the pci subsystem doesn't make use of subsys_initcall(). Instead,
it is simply placed early in the link order.
That being said, I'm not sure if the comparison with the PCI subsystem
holds... I am under the impression that PCI bus handling doesn't
require dedicated drivers? At least I can't see any under drivers/pci.
> There's no rule saying that subsystem initialization may not include
> the essential drivers -- in this case, i2c_adapter drivers. PCI hubs
> and bridges are certainly initialized very early, before module_init
> code runs...
Care to point me to actual code to backup this "certainly"?
> And in fact it seems a bit odd to think that initializing any bus
> subsystem shouldn't be allowed to include its bus adapters. It's
> not as if the subsystem has completed initializiation until those
> adapters are usable!!
I think it makes a lot of sense to initialize the core of a subsystem
early, so that all devices and drivers can be registered. This doesn't
imply registering the hardware bus drivers too, even though in some
cases it is also needed. I doubt that whoever designed subsys_initcall
meant it to be used for all bus drivers, otherwise he/she would have
named it, say, busdrv_initcall.
But don't get me wrong: if subsys_initcall is the way to go, that's
alright with me, that's way less work than having to move drivers to
different directories and fixing the link order.
More information about the i2c