Date: Mon, 18 Apr 2016 10:43:17 -0700 From: John Baldwin <jhb@freebsd.org> To: freebsd-current@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Mis-use of BUS_PASS_ORDER_MIDDLE Message-ID: <1611132.EbTME86UTe@ralph.baldwin.cx> In-Reply-To: <CAAvnz_rmbgM9t47eqV91ASXHddJjMyEucpF4_f-3Ed5pNoM8Bw@mail.gmail.com> References: <CAAvnz_rmbgM9t47eqV91ASXHddJjMyEucpF4_f-3Ed5pNoM8Bw@mail.gmail.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
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). -- John Baldwin
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?1611132.EbTME86UTe>