On 25-04-16, 14:53, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
On Monday 25 April 2016 08:30:41 Viresh Kumar wrote:
I realize that the ordering is fixed through the way that the kernel is linked, my worry is more about someone changing the code in some way because it's not obvious from reading the code that the dependency exists. If either the armada_xp_pmsu_cpufreq_init() initcall gets changed so it does not always get called, or the cpufreq_dt_platdev_init() initcall gets changed so it comes a little earlier, things will break.
cpufreq-dt will just error out in that case, because it wouldn't find any OPPs registered to the OPP-core. It *shouldn't* crash and if it does, then we have a problem to fix.
The other thing that can happen is that armada_xp_pmsu_cpufreq_init() call can fail. In that case, most of the times cpufreq-dt ->init() will fail as well, so even that is fine for me.
And, so I think we can keep this patch as is.
What are the downsides of moving armada_xp_pmsu_cpufreq_init() into drivers/cpufreq?
More special code :)