[PATCH] drivers: bus: omap_interconnect: Fix rand-config build warning

[Lokesh Vutla]

Hi Tony,

On Friday 26 October 2012 12:05 PM, Santosh Shilimkar wrote:
> On Friday 26 October 2012 12:45 AM, Tony Lindgren wrote:
>> * Santosh Shilimkar <santosh.shilimkar at ti.com> [121024 23:34]:
>>> On Thursday 25 October 2012 06:12 AM, Tony Lindgren wrote:
>>>> * Tony Lindgren <tony at atomide.com> [121024 17:36]:
>>>>> * Santosh Shilimkar <santosh.shilimkar at ti.com> [121017 06:35]:
>>>>>> (Looping Arnd and Olof)
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On Wednesday 17 October 2012 06:58 PM, Lokesh Vutla wrote:
>>>>>>> When building omap_l3_noc/smx drivers as modules, the following
>>>>>>> warning appears:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> CC [M]  drivers/bus/omap_l3_smx.o
>>>>>>> drivers/bus/omap_l3_smx.c:291: warning: data definition has no
>>>>>>> type or storage class
>>>>>>> drivers/bus/omap_l3_smx.c:291: warning: type defaults to 'int' in
>>>>>>> declaration of 'postcore_initcall_sync'
>>>>>>> drivers/bus/omap_l3_smx.c:291: warning: parameter names (without
>>>>>>> types) in function declaration
>>>>>>> drivers/bus/omap_l3_smx.c:287: warning: 'omap3_l3_init' defined
>>>>>>> but not used
>>>>>>> CC [M]  drivers/bus/omap_l3_noc.o
>>>>>>> drivers/bus/omap_l3_noc.c:260: warning: data definition has no
>>>>>>> type or storage class
>>>>>>> drivers/bus/omap_l3_noc.c:260: warning: type defaults to 'int' in
>>>>>>> declaration of 'arch_initcall_sync'
>>>>>>> drivers/bus/omap_l3_noc.c:260: warning: parameter names (without
>>>>>>> types) in function declaration
>>>>>>> drivers/bus/omap_l3_noc.c:256: warning: 'omap4_l3_init' defined
>>>>>>> but not used
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Adding module_init() and macros in omap_l3_noc/smx drivers when
>>>>>>> building
>>>>>>> as modules to remove the above warning.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Reported-by: Tony Lindgren <tony at atomide.com>
>>>>>>> Signed-off-by: Lokesh Vutla <lokeshvutla at ti.com>
>>>>>>> ---
>>>>>> Thanks for the fix Lokesh. Looks fine to me.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Acked-by: Santosh Shilimkar <santosh.shilimkar at ti.com>
>>>>>
>>>>> Looks like nobody else has picked this up so I'll queue this along
>>>>> with few other omap warnings and regressions.
>>>>
>>>> Hmm actually this might require some more discussion. If we make
>>>> it use regular initcalls, then the ugly ifdefs can be left
>>>> out. Is there a reason to init this early, can't we just use regular
>>>> initcalls?
>>>>
>>> I thought about it. The whole reason we want interconnect errors
>>> enabled early in the boot to avoid bad accesses issued on
>>> interconnect
>>> in early boot by various init codes. We managed to discovered many
>>> init sequence issues where the a driver is trying to access registers
>>> when clocks are not active, or drivers are using bad mapping. At times
>>> these errors gets un-noticed because of the behavior of interconnect
>>> and later causes serious issues. Leaving the driver init late in the
>>> boot means we can't catch any of the issues happen till the L3 driver
>>> init happens.
>>
>> OK yeah that makes sense. How about let's just make it
>> just postcore_initcall instead of postcore_initcall_sync?
>>
> _sync was added by purpose since the driver has depedency on
> the hwmod initialisation which is postcore_initcall. Without
> the sync, we open the race condition and the l3 driver
> registration will fail.
>
>> In include/linux/module.h we have:
>>
>> ...
>> #else /* MODULE */
>>
>> /* Don't use these in loadable modules, but some people do... */
>> #define early_initcall(fn)              module_init(fn)
>> #define core_initcall(fn)               module_init(fn)
>> #define postcore_initcall(fn)           module_init(fn)
>> ...
>>
>> While the postcore_initcall_sync does not have those.
>>
>> No idea what the current plan is, but I sort of remember reading
>> that the _sync versions are going away at some point anyways?
>>
> I have no idea either. As mentioned sync was added to avoid the
> race. If and when _sync is removed, something should come as an
> alternative to avoid initcall completion dependencies for the one
> which falls in same group.
Is the above discussion fine for you ?
Will you pick this patch or
you want any more modifications ?

Thanks
Lokesh
>
> Regards,
> Santosh
>
>