On Thu, Sep 06, 2018 at 01:00:49PM +0200, Lukas Wunner wrote: > On Thu, Sep 06, 2018 at 01:36:02PM +0300, Mika Westerberg wrote: > > On Thu, Sep 06, 2018 at 10:13:37AM +0200, Lukas Wunner wrote: > > > So with this patch, you rely on the linker ordering nhi_init() after > > > ir_dev_scope_init(), however to the best of my knowledge the link > > > order is not guaranteed. > > > > What says that? > > Within the same initcall level, the ordering is determined by the Makefile > AFAIK. Someone changes the Makefile, your dependency scheme falls apart.
There are other drivers doing the same so they would fail as well. It is common practice AFAIK. > > > Looking at commit acb40d841257, which started this, I'm wondering > > > why you did not simply export tbnet_init() and call it from the > > > thunderbolt driver after the property stuff has been fully set up? > > > After all, thunderbolt-net is useless without thunderbolt or am I > > > missing something? Then you could revert back to module_init(). > > > > The same reason you don't call PCI driver functions from PCI core. It > > makes absolutely zero sense. > > > > Thunderbolt is bus and provides driver API to drivers. We hopefully are > > getting other service drivers (say SCSI over TBT) that are going to be > > use the same interfaces. > > Then add a blocking notifier chain into which these service drivers can > hook. Other buses have that as well. It is really too complex to add notifier just for that. This works fine and is not against any kernel principles I am aware of.