On 26 May 2015 at 20:50, Rafael J. Wysocki rjw@rjwysocki.net wrote:
On Monday, May 25, 2015 05:50:10 PM Ashwin Chaugule wrote:
This change initializes the PCC Mailbox earlier than the ACPI processor driver. This enables drivers introduced in follow up patches (e.g. CPPC) to be probed via the ACPI processor driver interface. The CPPC probe requires the PCC channel to be initialized for it to query each CPUs performance capabilites.
Signed-off-by: Ashwin Chaugule ashwin.chaugule@linaro.org
drivers/mailbox/pcc.c | 2 +- 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
diff --git a/drivers/mailbox/pcc.c b/drivers/mailbox/pcc.c index 7e91d68..8809587 100644 --- a/drivers/mailbox/pcc.c +++ b/drivers/mailbox/pcc.c @@ -352,4 +352,4 @@ static int __init pcc_init(void)
return 0;} -device_initcall(pcc_init); +postcore_initcall(pcc_init);
If there is an ordering requirement between two components, it's better to make it explicit rather than to change the initcall priorities like that.
At least please add a comment why that needs to be postcore_ so people don't have to wonder why it is so.
Will do.
Thanks, Ashwin.