Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > linux.kernel > #1342211 > unrolled thread

Re: [PATCH] rtc: mt6397: Add platform device ID table

Back to article view | Back to linux.kernel

This discussion starts older than the indexed window; earlier articles aren't shown. The article labeled Started by below is the oldest one visible, not the original post.

Contents

  Re: [PATCH] rtc: mt6397: Add platform device ID table Arnd Bergmann <arnd@arndb.de> - 2016-02-24 18:00 +0100
    Re: [PATCH] rtc: mt6397: Add platform device ID table Javier Martinez Canillas <javier@osg.samsung.com> - 2016-02-24 18:10 +0100

#1342211 — Re: [PATCH] rtc: mt6397: Add platform device ID table

On Tuesday 16 February 2016 21:19:07 Eddie Huang wrote:
> On Tue, 2016-02-16 at 12:37 +0100, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
> > On Monday 15 February 2016 11:50:48 Javier Martinez Canillas wrote:
> > > 
> > > On 02/14/2016 10:58 PM, Eddie Huang wrote:
> > > 
> > > [snip]
> > > 
> > > >> @@ -412,6 +418,7 @@ static struct platform_driver mtk_rtc_driver = {
> > > >>      },
> > > >>      .probe  = mtk_rtc_probe,
> > > >>      .remove = mtk_rtc_remove,
> > > >> +    .id_table = mt6397_rtc_id,
> > > >>   };
> > > >>
> > > >>   module_platform_driver(mtk_rtc_driver);
> > > >> @@ -419,4 +426,3 @@ module_platform_driver(mtk_rtc_driver);
> > > >>   MODULE_LICENSE("GPL v2");
> > > >>   MODULE_AUTHOR("Tianping Fang <tianping.fang@mediatek.com>");
> > > >>   MODULE_DESCRIPTION("RTC Driver for MediaTek MT6397 PMIC");
> > > >> -MODULE_ALIAS("platform:mt6397-rtc");
> > > >
> > > > This patch looks good to me, but I am wondering, since we tend to use
> > > > device tree method to match driver, do we still need support platform
> > > > device ID ?
> > > >
> > > 
> > > I'm not familiar with neither this IP block nor the SoC so it is up to
> > > you. I just noticed this issue when reviewing a regulator driver for a
> > > similar PMIC posted by someone from mediatek.
> > > 
> > > I thought platform device was needed since the driver has a MODULE_ALIAS()
> > > but please let me know what you prefer and I can re-spin the patch and
> > > just remove the MODULE_ALIAS() if that makes more sense for this platform.
> > >   
> > > 
> > 
> > I agree. We can alway add a MODULE_DEVICE_TABLE() if we get multiple
> > users of this driver on architectures that don't use devicetree yet.
> > 
> 
> Sure. Thanks the patch to add expandability to this driver.
> 
> Acked-by: Eddie Huang <eddie.huang@mediatek.com>

I think we misunderstood one another. I think we can drop both the MODULE_DEVICE_TABLE and the MODULE_ALIAS: there is no need for another
driver ID when it is always probed using DT.

	Arnd

[toc] | [next] | [standalone]

#1342217

Hello Arnd,

On 02/24/2016 01:56 PM, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
> On Tuesday 16 February 2016 21:19:07 Eddie Huang wrote:
>> On Tue, 2016-02-16 at 12:37 +0100, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
>>> On Monday 15 February 2016 11:50:48 Javier Martinez Canillas wrote:
>>>>
>>>> On 02/14/2016 10:58 PM, Eddie Huang wrote:
>>>>
>>>> [snip]
>>>>
>>>>>> @@ -412,6 +418,7 @@ static struct platform_driver mtk_rtc_driver = {
>>>>>>       },
>>>>>>       .probe  = mtk_rtc_probe,
>>>>>>       .remove = mtk_rtc_remove,
>>>>>> +    .id_table = mt6397_rtc_id,
>>>>>>    };
>>>>>>
>>>>>>    module_platform_driver(mtk_rtc_driver);
>>>>>> @@ -419,4 +426,3 @@ module_platform_driver(mtk_rtc_driver);
>>>>>>    MODULE_LICENSE("GPL v2");
>>>>>>    MODULE_AUTHOR("Tianping Fang <tianping.fang@mediatek.com>");
>>>>>>    MODULE_DESCRIPTION("RTC Driver for MediaTek MT6397 PMIC");
>>>>>> -MODULE_ALIAS("platform:mt6397-rtc");
>>>>>
>>>>> This patch looks good to me, but I am wondering, since we tend to use
>>>>> device tree method to match driver, do we still need support platform
>>>>> device ID ?
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> I'm not familiar with neither this IP block nor the SoC so it is up to
>>>> you. I just noticed this issue when reviewing a regulator driver for a
>>>> similar PMIC posted by someone from mediatek.
>>>>
>>>> I thought platform device was needed since the driver has a MODULE_ALIAS()
>>>> but please let me know what you prefer and I can re-spin the patch and
>>>> just remove the MODULE_ALIAS() if that makes more sense for this platform.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>> I agree. We can alway add a MODULE_DEVICE_TABLE() if we get multiple
>>> users of this driver on architectures that don't use devicetree yet.
>>>
>>
>> Sure. Thanks the patch to add expandability to this driver.
>>
>> Acked-by: Eddie Huang <eddie.huang@mediatek.com>
>
> I think we misunderstood one another. I think we can drop both the MODULE_DEVICE_TABLE and the MODULE_ALIAS: there is no need for another
> driver ID when it is always probed using DT.
>

That's how I understood but then Eddie said the opposite so I got confused
and was waiting for your clarification. I'll re-spin and remove the alias.

> 	Arnd
>

Best regards,
-- 
Javier Martinez Canillas
Open Source Group
Samsung Research America

[toc] | [prev] | [standalone]

Back to top | Article view | linux.kernel

csiph-web