On Tue, Apr 19, 2016 at 2:53 AM John Baldwin <j...@freebsd.org> wrote:
> On Monday, April 18, 2016 11:10:12 PM Howard Su wrote: > > I noticed several places there are code like this, especially in some arm > > low level drivers. > > EARLY_DRIVER_MODULE(aw_ccu, simplebus, aw_ccu_driver, aw_ccu_devclass, > > 0, 0, BUS_PASS_BUS + BUS_PASS_ORDER_MIDDLE); > > > > I feel the usage of BUS_PASS_ORDER_MIDDLE is misused. There are another > > macro EARLY_DRIVER_MODULE_ORDERED, which take an additional parameter > > "order". I believe BUS_PASS_ORDER_xxx is used for that parameter. > > No, this is actually correct. The _ORDERED variants actually accept a > SI_ORDER_* value to determine how drivers contained in a single .ko file > are registered (in particular if you have several drivers in a .ko file > you typically want the "top-most" driver to attach last so that all the > other drivers are ready once the actual device is attached). > Why not use _ORDERED here to achieve same thing? _ORDERED(...., SI_ORDER_LAST, BUS_PASS_BUS)? I am thinking to add some macro like BUS_DRIVER_MODULE, INT_DRIVER_MODULE, TIMER_DRIVER_MODULE, so that the driver can declare itself in such way. If we can avoid usage of BUS_PASS_ORDER_XXX, the macro is much cleaner. I am plan to do is: in autoconf phase, first load timer, int and some bus, etc low level drivers first, then set cold=0, then load other driver to work around the problem that driver needs special handling on cold which is not necessary. of course, this may depends on your change of ap_startup. thoughts? > -- > John Baldwin > -- -Howard _______________________________________________ firstname.lastname@example.org mailing list https://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-current To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-current-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"