Re: [PATCH 2/5] ACPI: Reorder IPMI driver before any other ACPIdrivers

[Andrew Morton]

On Tue, 16 Oct 2012 15:53:37 -0500
minyard@xxxxxxx wrote:

> From: Matthew Garrett <mjg@xxxxxxxxxx>
> 
> Drivers may make calls that require the ACPI IPMI driver to have been
> initialised already, so make sure that it appears earlier in the build
> order.
> 
> ...
>
> index 47199e2..82422fe 100644
> --- a/drivers/acpi/Makefile
> +++ b/drivers/acpi/Makefile
> @@ -47,6 +47,10 @@ acpi-y				+= video_detect.o
>  endif
>  
>  # These are (potentially) separate modules
> +
> +# IPMI may be used by other drivers, so it has to initialise before them
> +obj-$(CONFIG_ACPI_IPMI)		+= acpi_ipmi.o
> +
>  obj-$(CONFIG_ACPI_AC) 		+= ac.o
>  obj-$(CONFIG_ACPI_BUTTON)	+= button.o
>  obj-$(CONFIG_ACPI_FAN)		+= fan.o
> @@ -70,6 +74,5 @@ processor-y			+= processor_idle.o processor_thermal.o
>  processor-$(CONFIG_CPU_FREQ)	+= processor_perflib.o
>  
>  obj-$(CONFIG_ACPI_PROCESSOR_AGGREGATOR) += acpi_pad.o
> -obj-$(CONFIG_ACPI_IPMI)		+= acpi_ipmi.o
>  
>  obj-$(CONFIG_ACPI_APEI)		+= apei/

Relying upon link ordering is the old-fashioned way of doing things,
and I have vague memories that it only works by luck - that there's no
hard-and-fast rule that the linker has to obey what we think we asked
it to do.

The usual way of doing this sort of thing is to use the initcall
priority levels - core_initcall(), postcore_initcall(), etc.  Can that
be done here?

--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/