Date: Wed, 9 Aug 2017 22:59:19 +0200 From: Manuel =?iso-8859-15?Q?St=FChn?= <freebsdnewbie@freenet.de> To: freebsd-arm@freebsd.org Subject: devicetree vs. MODULE_DEPEND Message-ID: <20170809205919.GA62042@freebsd-t420.fritz.box>
next in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Hi list, is it correct, that the sequence in the devicetree-blob defines the probing sequence without considering the MODULE_DEPEND-macro? I stumbled over an unexpected behavior during the ti_pruss-driver development. Because the ti-pruss is gone in the default devicetree, I activate it via the overlay-framework and put it to the address "/ocp/pruss@4a300000". The devicetree-blob contains the entry and the driver gets probed, but it fails to enable its clock. This is quite obvious as according to dmesg the am335x_prcm0 is probed _after_ the ti_pruss0 device. So I tried to handle this by adding an explicit dependency to ti_prcm into the ti_pruss driver like: MODULE_DEPEND(ti_pruss, ti_prcm, 1, 1, 1); It compiles cleanly, unfortunately this changes nothing. Only placing it in the devicetree after the prcm-node or loading it as a module after the OS booted up makes the device probe correctly. Any ideas?
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20170809205919.GA62042>