Received-SPF: pass (google.com: best guess record for domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 209.132.180.67 as permitted sender) client-ip=209.132.180.67;
Date:   Sat, 3 Aug 2019 18:34:20 +0100
From:   Marc Zyngier <maz@kernel.org>
To:     Steven Price <steven.price@arm.com>
Cc:     kvm@vger.kernel.org, Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@arm.com>,
        linux-doc@vger.kernel.org, Russell King <linux@armlinux.org.uk>,
        linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org,
        Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@redhat.com>,
        Will Deacon <will@kernel.org>, kvmarm@lists.cs.columbia.edu
Subject: Re: [PATCH 6/9] KVM: arm64: Provide a PV_TIME device to user space
Message-ID: <20190803183335.149e0113@why>
In-Reply-To: <20190803135113.6cdf500c@why>
References: <20190802145017.42543-1-steven.price@arm.com>
        <20190802145017.42543-7-steven.price@arm.com>
        <20190803135113.6cdf500c@why>
Organization: Approximate
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

On Sat, 3 Aug 2019 13:51:13 +0100
Marc Zyngier <maz@kernel.org> wrote:

[forgot that one]

> On Fri,  2 Aug 2019 15:50:14 +0100
> Steven Price <steven.price@arm.com> wrote:

[...]

> > +static int __init kvm_pvtime_init(void)
> > +{
> > +	kvm_register_device_ops(&pvtime_ops, KVM_DEV_TYPE_ARM_PV_TIME);
> > +
> > +	return 0;
> > +}
> > +
> > +late_initcall(kvm_pvtime_init);

Why is it an initcall? So far, the only initcall we've used is the one
that initializes KVM itself. Can't we just the device_ops just like we
do for the vgic?

	M.
-- 
Without deviation from the norm, progress is not possible.