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

Groups > linux.kernel > #1657031 > unrolled thread

[PATCH 0/9] mfd: Remove redundant i2c_device_id

Started byKeerthy <j-keerthy@ti.com>
First post2017-06-04 11:20 +0200
Last post2017-06-06 13:10 +0200
Articles 16 — 3 participants

Back to article view | Back to linux.kernel

Contents

  [PATCH 0/9] mfd: Remove redundant i2c_device_id Keerthy <j-keerthy@ti.com> - 2017-06-04 11:20 +0200
    [PATCH 3/9] mfd: palmas: Remove redundant i2c_device_id Keerthy <j-keerthy@ti.com> - 2017-06-04 11:30 +0200
    [PATCH 5/9] mfd: lp8788: Remove redundant i2c_device_id Keerthy <j-keerthy@ti.com> - 2017-06-04 11:30 +0200
    [PATCH 9/9] mfd: tps6586x: Remove redundant i2c_device_id Keerthy <j-keerthy@ti.com> - 2017-06-04 11:30 +0200
    [PATCH 7/9] mfd: tps65086: Remove redundant i2c_device_id Keerthy <j-keerthy@ti.com> - 2017-06-04 11:30 +0200
    [PATCH 2/9] mfd: tps65218: Remove redundant i2c_device_id Keerthy <j-keerthy@ti.com> - 2017-06-04 11:30 +0200
    [PATCH 8/9] mfd: tps65090: Remove redundant i2c_device_id Keerthy <j-keerthy@ti.com> - 2017-06-04 11:30 +0200
    [PATCH 6/9] mfd: lp3943: Remove redundant i2c_device_id Keerthy <j-keerthy@ti.com> - 2017-06-04 11:30 +0200
    [PATCH 4/9] mfd: lp873x: Remove redundant i2c_device_id Keerthy <j-keerthy@ti.com> - 2017-06-04 11:30 +0200
    Re: [PATCH 0/9] mfd: Remove redundant i2c_device_id Lee Jones <lee.jones@linaro.org> - 2017-06-05 12:40 +0200
      Re: [PATCH 0/9] mfd: Remove redundant i2c_device_id Keerthy <j-keerthy@ti.com> - 2017-06-05 16:40 +0200
        Re: [PATCH 0/9] mfd: Remove redundant i2c_device_id Lee Jones <lee.jones@linaro.org> - 2017-06-06 09:20 +0200
          Re: [PATCH 0/9] mfd: Remove redundant i2c_device_id Keerthy <j-keerthy@ti.com> - 2017-06-06 09:40 +0200
            Re: [PATCH 0/9] mfd: Remove redundant i2c_device_id Keerthy <j-keerthy@ti.com> - 2017-06-06 09:50 +0200
              Re: [PATCH 0/9] mfd: Remove redundant i2c_device_id Tony Lindgren <tony@atomide.com> - 2017-06-06 12:50 +0200
                Re: [PATCH 0/9] mfd: Remove redundant i2c_device_id Keerthy <j-keerthy@ti.com> - 2017-06-06 13:10 +0200

#1657031 — [PATCH 0/9] mfd: Remove redundant i2c_device_id

FromKeerthy <j-keerthy@ti.com>
Date2017-06-04 11:20 +0200
Subject[PATCH 0/9] mfd: Remove redundant i2c_device_id
Message-ID<tOzRw-2Sl-7@gated-at.bofh.it>
With the introduction of probe_new function the i2c_device_id
is no longer needed. Hence the remove the same and use probe_new
instead of probe. 

Keerthy (9):
  mfd: tps65217: Remove redundant i2c_device_id
  mfd: tps65218: Remove redundant i2c_device_id
  mfd: palmas: Remove redundant i2c_device_id
  mfd: lp873x: Remove redundant i2c_device_id
  mfd: lp8788: Remove redundant i2c_device_id
  mfd: lp3943: Remove redundant i2c_device_id
  mfd: tps65086: Remove redundant i2c_device_id
  mfd: tps65090: Remove redundant i2c_device_id
  mfd: tps6586x: Remove redundant i2c_device_id

 drivers/mfd/lp3943.c   | 11 ++---------
 drivers/mfd/lp873x.c   | 12 ++----------
 drivers/mfd/lp8788.c   | 11 ++---------
 drivers/mfd/palmas.c   | 15 ++-------------
 drivers/mfd/tps65086.c | 12 ++----------
 drivers/mfd/tps65090.c | 12 ++----------
 drivers/mfd/tps65217.c | 14 +++-----------
 drivers/mfd/tps65218.c |  9 +++++----
 drivers/mfd/tps6586x.c | 12 ++----------
 9 files changed, 22 insertions(+), 86 deletions(-)

-- 
1.9.1

[toc] | [next] | [standalone]

#1657032 — [PATCH 3/9] mfd: palmas: Remove redundant i2c_device_id

FromKeerthy <j-keerthy@ti.com>
Date2017-06-04 11:30 +0200
Subject[PATCH 3/9] mfd: palmas: Remove redundant i2c_device_id
Message-ID<tOA1c-2Ws-1@gated-at.bofh.it>
In reply to#1657031
With the introduction of probe_new function the i2c_device_id
is no longer needed. Hence the remove the same and use probe_new
instead of probe.

Signed-off-by: Keerthy <j-keerthy@ti.com>
---

Boot tested on dra7-evm and dra72-evm and checked for regulator registrations.

 drivers/mfd/palmas.c | 15 ++-------------
 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 13 deletions(-)

diff --git a/drivers/mfd/palmas.c b/drivers/mfd/palmas.c
index 9103aff..db9e53c 100644
--- a/drivers/mfd/palmas.c
+++ b/drivers/mfd/palmas.c
@@ -499,8 +499,7 @@ struct palmas_driver_data {
 };
 MODULE_DEVICE_TABLE(of, of_palmas_match_tbl);
 
-static int palmas_i2c_probe(struct i2c_client *i2c,
-			    const struct i2c_device_id *id)
+static int palmas_i2c_probe(struct i2c_client *i2c)
 {
 	struct palmas *palmas;
 	struct palmas_platform_data *pdata;
@@ -717,23 +716,13 @@ static int palmas_i2c_remove(struct i2c_client *i2c)
 	return 0;
 }
 
-static const struct i2c_device_id palmas_i2c_id[] = {
-	{ "palmas", },
-	{ "twl6035", },
-	{ "twl6037", },
-	{ "tps65913", },
-	{ /* end */ }
-};
-MODULE_DEVICE_TABLE(i2c, palmas_i2c_id);
-
 static struct i2c_driver palmas_i2c_driver = {
 	.driver = {
 		   .name = "palmas",
 		   .of_match_table = of_palmas_match_tbl,
 	},
-	.probe = palmas_i2c_probe,
+	.probe_new = palmas_i2c_probe,
 	.remove = palmas_i2c_remove,
-	.id_table = palmas_i2c_id,
 };
 
 static int __init palmas_i2c_init(void)
-- 
1.9.1

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#1657033 — [PATCH 5/9] mfd: lp8788: Remove redundant i2c_device_id

FromKeerthy <j-keerthy@ti.com>
Date2017-06-04 11:30 +0200
Subject[PATCH 5/9] mfd: lp8788: Remove redundant i2c_device_id
Message-ID<tOA1c-2Ws-3@gated-at.bofh.it>
In reply to#1657031
With the introduction of probe_new function the i2c_device_id
is no longer needed. Hence the remove the same and use probe_new
instead of probe.

Signed-off-by: Keerthy <j-keerthy@ti.com>
---

Compile tested.

 drivers/mfd/lp8788.c | 11 ++---------
 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 9 deletions(-)

diff --git a/drivers/mfd/lp8788.c b/drivers/mfd/lp8788.c
index acf6165..a46139d 100644
--- a/drivers/mfd/lp8788.c
+++ b/drivers/mfd/lp8788.c
@@ -170,7 +170,7 @@ static int lp8788_platform_init(struct lp8788 *lp)
 	.max_register = MAX_LP8788_REGISTERS,
 };
 
-static int lp8788_probe(struct i2c_client *cl, const struct i2c_device_id *id)
+static int lp8788_probe(struct i2c_client *cl)
 {
 	struct lp8788 *lp;
 	struct lp8788_platform_data *pdata = dev_get_platdata(&cl->dev);
@@ -212,19 +212,12 @@ static int lp8788_remove(struct i2c_client *cl)
 	return 0;
 }
 
-static const struct i2c_device_id lp8788_ids[] = {
-	{"lp8788", 0},
-	{ }
-};
-MODULE_DEVICE_TABLE(i2c, lp8788_ids);
-
 static struct i2c_driver lp8788_driver = {
 	.driver = {
 		.name = "lp8788",
 	},
-	.probe = lp8788_probe,
+	.probe_new = lp8788_probe,
 	.remove = lp8788_remove,
-	.id_table = lp8788_ids,
 };
 
 static int __init lp8788_init(void)
-- 
1.9.1

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#1657034 — [PATCH 9/9] mfd: tps6586x: Remove redundant i2c_device_id

FromKeerthy <j-keerthy@ti.com>
Date2017-06-04 11:30 +0200
Subject[PATCH 9/9] mfd: tps6586x: Remove redundant i2c_device_id
Message-ID<tOA1c-2Ws-5@gated-at.bofh.it>
In reply to#1657031
With the introduction of probe_new function the i2c_device_id
is no longer needed. Hence the remove the same and use probe_new
instead of probe.

Signed-off-by: Keerthy <j-keerthy@ti.com>
---

Compile tested.

 drivers/mfd/tps6586x.c | 12 ++----------
 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 10 deletions(-)

diff --git a/drivers/mfd/tps6586x.c b/drivers/mfd/tps6586x.c
index 5628a6b..5572cf6 100644
--- a/drivers/mfd/tps6586x.c
+++ b/drivers/mfd/tps6586x.c
@@ -503,8 +503,7 @@ static void tps6586x_print_version(struct i2c_client *client, int version)
 	dev_info(&client->dev, "Found %s, VERSIONCRC is %02x\n", name, version);
 }
 
-static int tps6586x_i2c_probe(struct i2c_client *client,
-					const struct i2c_device_id *id)
+static int tps6586x_i2c_probe(struct i2c_client *client)
 {
 	struct tps6586x_platform_data *pdata = dev_get_platdata(&client->dev);
 	struct tps6586x *tps6586x;
@@ -594,20 +593,13 @@ static int tps6586x_i2c_remove(struct i2c_client *client)
 	return 0;
 }
 
-static const struct i2c_device_id tps6586x_id_table[] = {
-	{ "tps6586x", 0 },
-	{ },
-};
-MODULE_DEVICE_TABLE(i2c, tps6586x_id_table);
-
 static struct i2c_driver tps6586x_driver = {
 	.driver	= {
 		.name	= "tps6586x",
 		.of_match_table = of_match_ptr(tps6586x_of_match),
 	},
-	.probe		= tps6586x_i2c_probe,
+	.probe_new	= tps6586x_i2c_probe,
 	.remove		= tps6586x_i2c_remove,
-	.id_table	= tps6586x_id_table,
 };
 
 static int __init tps6586x_init(void)
-- 
1.9.1

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#1657035 — [PATCH 7/9] mfd: tps65086: Remove redundant i2c_device_id

FromKeerthy <j-keerthy@ti.com>
Date2017-06-04 11:30 +0200
Subject[PATCH 7/9] mfd: tps65086: Remove redundant i2c_device_id
Message-ID<tOA1c-2Ws-11@gated-at.bofh.it>
In reply to#1657031
With the introduction of probe_new function the i2c_device_id
is no longer needed. Hence the remove the same and use probe_new
instead of probe.

Signed-off-by: Keerthy <j-keerthy@ti.com>
---

Compile tested.

 drivers/mfd/tps65086.c | 12 ++----------
 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 10 deletions(-)

diff --git a/drivers/mfd/tps65086.c b/drivers/mfd/tps65086.c
index 43119a6..975ac4a 100644
--- a/drivers/mfd/tps65086.c
+++ b/drivers/mfd/tps65086.c
@@ -68,8 +68,7 @@
 };
 MODULE_DEVICE_TABLE(of, tps65086_of_match_table);
 
-static int tps65086_probe(struct i2c_client *client,
-			  const struct i2c_device_id *ids)
+static int tps65086_probe(struct i2c_client *client)
 {
 	struct tps65086 *tps;
 	unsigned int version;
@@ -127,20 +126,13 @@ static int tps65086_remove(struct i2c_client *client)
 	return 0;
 }
 
-static const struct i2c_device_id tps65086_id_table[] = {
-	{ "tps65086", 0 },
-	{ /* sentinel */ }
-};
-MODULE_DEVICE_TABLE(i2c, tps65086_id_table);
-
 static struct i2c_driver tps65086_driver = {
 	.driver		= {
 		.name	= "tps65086",
 		.of_match_table = tps65086_of_match_table,
 	},
-	.probe		= tps65086_probe,
+	.probe_new	= tps65086_probe,
 	.remove		= tps65086_remove,
-	.id_table       = tps65086_id_table,
 };
 module_i2c_driver(tps65086_driver);
 
-- 
1.9.1

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#1657036 — [PATCH 2/9] mfd: tps65218: Remove redundant i2c_device_id

FromKeerthy <j-keerthy@ti.com>
Date2017-06-04 11:30 +0200
Subject[PATCH 2/9] mfd: tps65218: Remove redundant i2c_device_id
Message-ID<tOA1c-2Ws-9@gated-at.bofh.it>
In reply to#1657031
With the introduction of probe_new function the i2c_device_id
is no longer needed. Hence the remove the same and use probe_new
instead of probe.

Signed-off-by: Keerthy <j-keerthy@ti.com>
---

Boot tested on am347x-gp-evm and checked for regulator registrations.

 drivers/mfd/tps65218.c | 9 +++++----
 1 file changed, 5 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-)

diff --git a/drivers/mfd/tps65218.c b/drivers/mfd/tps65218.c
index 13834a0..53df80b 100644
--- a/drivers/mfd/tps65218.c
+++ b/drivers/mfd/tps65218.c
@@ -211,8 +211,7 @@ int tps65218_clear_bits(struct tps65218 *tps, unsigned int reg,
 };
 MODULE_DEVICE_TABLE(of, of_tps65218_match_table);
 
-static int tps65218_probe(struct i2c_client *client,
-				const struct i2c_device_id *ids)
+static int tps65218_probe(struct i2c_client *client)
 {
 	struct tps65218 *tps;
 	const struct of_device_id *match;
@@ -281,20 +280,22 @@ static int tps65218_remove(struct i2c_client *client)
 	return 0;
 }
 
+#if 0
 static const struct i2c_device_id tps65218_id_table[] = {
 	{ "tps65218", TPS65218 },
 	{ },
 };
 MODULE_DEVICE_TABLE(i2c, tps65218_id_table);
+#endif
 
 static struct i2c_driver tps65218_driver = {
 	.driver		= {
 		.name	= "tps65218",
 		.of_match_table = of_tps65218_match_table,
 	},
-	.probe		= tps65218_probe,
+	.probe_new	= tps65218_probe,
 	.remove		= tps65218_remove,
-	.id_table       = tps65218_id_table,
+	//.id_table       = tps65218_id_table,
 };
 
 module_i2c_driver(tps65218_driver);
-- 
1.9.1

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#1657037 — [PATCH 8/9] mfd: tps65090: Remove redundant i2c_device_id

FromKeerthy <j-keerthy@ti.com>
Date2017-06-04 11:30 +0200
Subject[PATCH 8/9] mfd: tps65090: Remove redundant i2c_device_id
Message-ID<tOA1c-2Ws-13@gated-at.bofh.it>
In reply to#1657031
With the introduction of probe_new function the i2c_device_id
is no longer needed. Hence the remove the same and use probe_new
instead of probe.

Signed-off-by: Keerthy <j-keerthy@ti.com>
---

Compile tested.

 drivers/mfd/tps65090.c | 12 ++----------
 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 10 deletions(-)

diff --git a/drivers/mfd/tps65090.c b/drivers/mfd/tps65090.c
index d7ec318..200a9c8 100644
--- a/drivers/mfd/tps65090.c
+++ b/drivers/mfd/tps65090.c
@@ -174,8 +174,7 @@ static bool is_volatile_reg(struct device *dev, unsigned int reg)
 MODULE_DEVICE_TABLE(of, tps65090_of_match);
 #endif
 
-static int tps65090_i2c_probe(struct i2c_client *client,
-			      const struct i2c_device_id *id)
+static int tps65090_i2c_probe(struct i2c_client *client)
 {
 	struct tps65090_platform_data *pdata = dev_get_platdata(&client->dev);
 	int irq_base = 0;
@@ -249,20 +248,13 @@ static int tps65090_i2c_remove(struct i2c_client *client)
 	return 0;
 }
 
-static const struct i2c_device_id tps65090_id_table[] = {
-	{ "tps65090", 0 },
-	{ },
-};
-MODULE_DEVICE_TABLE(i2c, tps65090_id_table);
-
 static struct i2c_driver tps65090_driver = {
 	.driver	= {
 		.name	= "tps65090",
 		.of_match_table = of_match_ptr(tps65090_of_match),
 	},
-	.probe		= tps65090_i2c_probe,
+	.probe_new	= tps65090_i2c_probe,
 	.remove		= tps65090_i2c_remove,
-	.id_table	= tps65090_id_table,
 };
 
 static int __init tps65090_init(void)
-- 
1.9.1

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#1657038 — [PATCH 6/9] mfd: lp3943: Remove redundant i2c_device_id

FromKeerthy <j-keerthy@ti.com>
Date2017-06-04 11:30 +0200
Subject[PATCH 6/9] mfd: lp3943: Remove redundant i2c_device_id
Message-ID<tOA1c-2Ws-15@gated-at.bofh.it>
In reply to#1657031
With the introduction of probe_new function the i2c_device_id
is no longer needed. Hence the remove the same and use probe_new
instead of probe.

Signed-off-by: Keerthy <j-keerthy@ti.com>
---

Compile tested.

 drivers/mfd/lp3943.c | 11 ++---------
 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 9 deletions(-)

diff --git a/drivers/mfd/lp3943.c b/drivers/mfd/lp3943.c
index 65a2a8f1..84ec685 100644
--- a/drivers/mfd/lp3943.c
+++ b/drivers/mfd/lp3943.c
@@ -105,7 +105,7 @@ int lp3943_update_bits(struct lp3943 *lp3943, u8 reg, u8 mask, u8 data)
 	.max_register = LP3943_MAX_REGISTERS,
 };
 
-static int lp3943_probe(struct i2c_client *cl, const struct i2c_device_id *id)
+static int lp3943_probe(struct i2c_client *cl)
 {
 	struct lp3943 *lp3943;
 	struct device *dev = &cl->dev;
@@ -128,12 +128,6 @@ static int lp3943_probe(struct i2c_client *cl, const struct i2c_device_id *id)
 				    NULL, 0, NULL);
 }
 
-static const struct i2c_device_id lp3943_ids[] = {
-	{ "lp3943", 0 },
-	{ }
-};
-MODULE_DEVICE_TABLE(i2c, lp3943_ids);
-
 #ifdef CONFIG_OF
 static const struct of_device_id lp3943_of_match[] = {
 	{ .compatible = "ti,lp3943", },
@@ -143,12 +137,11 @@ static int lp3943_probe(struct i2c_client *cl, const struct i2c_device_id *id)
 #endif
 
 static struct i2c_driver lp3943_driver = {
-	.probe = lp3943_probe,
+	.probe_new = lp3943_probe,
 	.driver = {
 		.name = "lp3943",
 		.of_match_table = of_match_ptr(lp3943_of_match),
 	},
-	.id_table = lp3943_ids,
 };
 
 module_i2c_driver(lp3943_driver);
-- 
1.9.1

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#1657039 — [PATCH 4/9] mfd: lp873x: Remove redundant i2c_device_id

FromKeerthy <j-keerthy@ti.com>
Date2017-06-04 11:30 +0200
Subject[PATCH 4/9] mfd: lp873x: Remove redundant i2c_device_id
Message-ID<tOA1d-2Ws-19@gated-at.bofh.it>
In reply to#1657031
With the introduction of probe_new function the i2c_device_id
is no longer needed. Hence the remove the same and use probe_new
instead of probe.

Signed-off-by: Keerthy <j-keerthy@ti.com>
---

Boot tested on dra71-evm and checked for regulator registrations.

 drivers/mfd/lp873x.c | 12 ++----------
 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 10 deletions(-)

diff --git a/drivers/mfd/lp873x.c b/drivers/mfd/lp873x.c
index 873c608..47be6b8 100644
--- a/drivers/mfd/lp873x.c
+++ b/drivers/mfd/lp873x.c
@@ -32,8 +32,7 @@
 	{ .name = "lp873x-gpio", },
 };
 
-static int lp873x_probe(struct i2c_client *client,
-			const struct i2c_device_id *ids)
+static int lp873x_probe(struct i2c_client *client)
 {
 	struct lp873x *lp873;
 	int ret;
@@ -76,19 +75,12 @@ static int lp873x_probe(struct i2c_client *client,
 };
 MODULE_DEVICE_TABLE(of, of_lp873x_match_table);
 
-static const struct i2c_device_id lp873x_id_table[] = {
-	{ "lp873x", 0 },
-	{ },
-};
-MODULE_DEVICE_TABLE(i2c, lp873x_id_table);
-
 static struct i2c_driver lp873x_driver = {
 	.driver	= {
 		.name	= "lp873x",
 		.of_match_table = of_lp873x_match_table,
 	},
-	.probe		= lp873x_probe,
-	.id_table	= lp873x_id_table,
+	.probe_new	= lp873x_probe,
 };
 module_i2c_driver(lp873x_driver);
 
-- 
1.9.1

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#1657492

FromLee Jones <lee.jones@linaro.org>
Date2017-06-05 12:40 +0200
Message-ID<tOXAu-1HK-5@gated-at.bofh.it>
In reply to#1657031
On Sun, 04 Jun 2017, Keerthy wrote:

> With the introduction of probe_new function the i2c_device_id
> is no longer needed. Hence the remove the same and use probe_new
> instead of probe. 
> 
> Keerthy (9):
>   mfd: tps65217: Remove redundant i2c_device_id
>   mfd: tps65218: Remove redundant i2c_device_id
>   mfd: palmas: Remove redundant i2c_device_id
>   mfd: lp873x: Remove redundant i2c_device_id
>   mfd: lp8788: Remove redundant i2c_device_id
>   mfd: lp3943: Remove redundant i2c_device_id
>   mfd: tps65086: Remove redundant i2c_device_id
>   mfd: tps65090: Remove redundant i2c_device_id
>   mfd: tps6586x: Remove redundant i2c_device_id
> 
>  drivers/mfd/lp3943.c   | 11 ++---------
>  drivers/mfd/lp873x.c   | 12 ++----------
>  drivers/mfd/lp8788.c   | 11 ++---------
>  drivers/mfd/palmas.c   | 15 ++-------------
>  drivers/mfd/tps65086.c | 12 ++----------
>  drivers/mfd/tps65090.c | 12 ++----------
>  drivers/mfd/tps65217.c | 14 +++-----------
>  drivers/mfd/tps65218.c |  9 +++++----
>  drivers/mfd/tps6586x.c | 12 ++----------

Are all of these drivers DT only?

>  9 files changed, 22 insertions(+), 86 deletions(-)


-- 
Lee Jones
Linaro STMicroelectronics Landing Team Lead
Linaro.org │ Open source software for ARM SoCs
Follow Linaro: Facebook | Twitter | Blog

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#1657635

FromKeerthy <j-keerthy@ti.com>
Date2017-06-05 16:40 +0200
Message-ID<tP1kJ-45z-1@gated-at.bofh.it>
In reply to#1657492

On Monday 05 June 2017 04:07 PM, Lee Jones wrote:
> On Sun, 04 Jun 2017, Keerthy wrote:
> 
>> With the introduction of probe_new function the i2c_device_id
>> is no longer needed. Hence the remove the same and use probe_new
>> instead of probe. 
>>
>> Keerthy (9):
>>   mfd: tps65217: Remove redundant i2c_device_id
>>   mfd: tps65218: Remove redundant i2c_device_id
>>   mfd: palmas: Remove redundant i2c_device_id
>>   mfd: lp873x: Remove redundant i2c_device_id
>>   mfd: lp8788: Remove redundant i2c_device_id
>>   mfd: lp3943: Remove redundant i2c_device_id
>>   mfd: tps65086: Remove redundant i2c_device_id
>>   mfd: tps65090: Remove redundant i2c_device_id
>>   mfd: tps6586x: Remove redundant i2c_device_id
>>
>>  drivers/mfd/lp3943.c   | 11 ++---------
>>  drivers/mfd/lp873x.c   | 12 ++----------
>>  drivers/mfd/lp8788.c   | 11 ++---------
>>  drivers/mfd/palmas.c   | 15 ++-------------
>>  drivers/mfd/tps65086.c | 12 ++----------
>>  drivers/mfd/tps65090.c | 12 ++----------
>>  drivers/mfd/tps65217.c | 14 +++-----------
>>  drivers/mfd/tps65218.c |  9 +++++----
>>  drivers/mfd/tps6586x.c | 12 ++----------
> 
> Are all of these drivers DT only?

At least i did not find any platform code calling on to these drivers.
No dependency on OF as such. Hence sent these 9.

> 
>>  9 files changed, 22 insertions(+), 86 deletions(-)
> 
>

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#1658420

FromLee Jones <lee.jones@linaro.org>
Date2017-06-06 09:20 +0200
Message-ID<tPgWu-5BA-13@gated-at.bofh.it>
In reply to#1657635
On Mon, 05 Jun 2017, Keerthy wrote:

> 
> 
> On Monday 05 June 2017 04:07 PM, Lee Jones wrote:
> > On Sun, 04 Jun 2017, Keerthy wrote:
> > 
> >> With the introduction of probe_new function the i2c_device_id
> >> is no longer needed. Hence the remove the same and use probe_new
> >> instead of probe. 
> >>
> >> Keerthy (9):
> >>   mfd: tps65217: Remove redundant i2c_device_id
> >>   mfd: tps65218: Remove redundant i2c_device_id
> >>   mfd: palmas: Remove redundant i2c_device_id
> >>   mfd: lp873x: Remove redundant i2c_device_id
> >>   mfd: lp8788: Remove redundant i2c_device_id
> >>   mfd: lp3943: Remove redundant i2c_device_id
> >>   mfd: tps65086: Remove redundant i2c_device_id
> >>   mfd: tps65090: Remove redundant i2c_device_id
> >>   mfd: tps6586x: Remove redundant i2c_device_id
> >>
> >>  drivers/mfd/lp3943.c   | 11 ++---------
> >>  drivers/mfd/lp873x.c   | 12 ++----------
> >>  drivers/mfd/lp8788.c   | 11 ++---------
> >>  drivers/mfd/palmas.c   | 15 ++-------------
> >>  drivers/mfd/tps65086.c | 12 ++----------
> >>  drivers/mfd/tps65090.c | 12 ++----------
> >>  drivers/mfd/tps65217.c | 14 +++-----------
> >>  drivers/mfd/tps65218.c |  9 +++++----
> >>  drivers/mfd/tps6586x.c | 12 ++----------
> > 
> > Are all of these drivers DT only?
> 
> At least i did not find any platform code calling on to these drivers.
> No dependency on OF as such. Hence sent these 9.

I can't accept these changes on any drivers which does not depend on
OF as a hard requirement.

-- 
Lee Jones
Linaro STMicroelectronics Landing Team Lead
Linaro.org │ Open source software for ARM SoCs
Follow Linaro: Facebook | Twitter | Blog

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#1658446

FromKeerthy <j-keerthy@ti.com>
Date2017-06-06 09:40 +0200
Message-ID<tPhfP-5IU-17@gated-at.bofh.it>
In reply to#1658420

On Tuesday 06 June 2017 12:47 PM, Lee Jones wrote:
> On Mon, 05 Jun 2017, Keerthy wrote:
> 
>>
>>
>> On Monday 05 June 2017 04:07 PM, Lee Jones wrote:
>>> On Sun, 04 Jun 2017, Keerthy wrote:
>>>
>>>> With the introduction of probe_new function the i2c_device_id
>>>> is no longer needed. Hence the remove the same and use probe_new
>>>> instead of probe. 
>>>>
>>>> Keerthy (9):
>>>>   mfd: tps65217: Remove redundant i2c_device_id
>>>>   mfd: tps65218: Remove redundant i2c_device_id
>>>>   mfd: palmas: Remove redundant i2c_device_id
>>>>   mfd: lp873x: Remove redundant i2c_device_id
>>>>   mfd: lp8788: Remove redundant i2c_device_id
>>>>   mfd: lp3943: Remove redundant i2c_device_id
>>>>   mfd: tps65086: Remove redundant i2c_device_id
>>>>   mfd: tps65090: Remove redundant i2c_device_id
>>>>   mfd: tps6586x: Remove redundant i2c_device_id
>>>>
>>>>  drivers/mfd/lp3943.c   | 11 ++---------
>>>>  drivers/mfd/lp873x.c   | 12 ++----------
>>>>  drivers/mfd/lp8788.c   | 11 ++---------
>>>>  drivers/mfd/palmas.c   | 15 ++-------------
>>>>  drivers/mfd/tps65086.c | 12 ++----------
>>>>  drivers/mfd/tps65090.c | 12 ++----------
>>>>  drivers/mfd/tps65217.c | 14 +++-----------
>>>>  drivers/mfd/tps65218.c |  9 +++++----
>>>>  drivers/mfd/tps6586x.c | 12 ++----------
>>>
>>> Are all of these drivers DT only?
>>
>> At least i did not find any platform code calling on to these drivers.
>> No dependency on OF as such. Hence sent these 9.
> 
> I can't accept these changes on any drivers which does not depend on
> OF as a hard requirement.

Okay. So that is a per-requisite. At least palmas, tps65218, lp873x,
tps65217 imho can have the OF dependency. I will post patches for that
and then will resurrect this series.

Thanks for your feedback.


>

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#1658462

FromKeerthy <j-keerthy@ti.com>
Date2017-06-06 09:50 +0200
Message-ID<tPhpw-5Na-17@gated-at.bofh.it>
In reply to#1658446

On Tuesday 06 June 2017 01:00 PM, Keerthy wrote:
> 
> 
> On Tuesday 06 June 2017 12:47 PM, Lee Jones wrote:
>> On Mon, 05 Jun 2017, Keerthy wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On Monday 05 June 2017 04:07 PM, Lee Jones wrote:
>>>> On Sun, 04 Jun 2017, Keerthy wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> With the introduction of probe_new function the i2c_device_id
>>>>> is no longer needed. Hence the remove the same and use probe_new
>>>>> instead of probe. 
>>>>>
>>>>> Keerthy (9):
>>>>>   mfd: tps65217: Remove redundant i2c_device_id
>>>>>   mfd: tps65218: Remove redundant i2c_device_id
>>>>>   mfd: palmas: Remove redundant i2c_device_id
>>>>>   mfd: lp873x: Remove redundant i2c_device_id
>>>>>   mfd: lp8788: Remove redundant i2c_device_id
>>>>>   mfd: lp3943: Remove redundant i2c_device_id
>>>>>   mfd: tps65086: Remove redundant i2c_device_id
>>>>>   mfd: tps65090: Remove redundant i2c_device_id
>>>>>   mfd: tps6586x: Remove redundant i2c_device_id
>>>>>
>>>>>  drivers/mfd/lp3943.c   | 11 ++---------
>>>>>  drivers/mfd/lp873x.c   | 12 ++----------
>>>>>  drivers/mfd/lp8788.c   | 11 ++---------
>>>>>  drivers/mfd/palmas.c   | 15 ++-------------
>>>>>  drivers/mfd/tps65086.c | 12 ++----------
>>>>>  drivers/mfd/tps65090.c | 12 ++----------
>>>>>  drivers/mfd/tps65217.c | 14 +++-----------
>>>>>  drivers/mfd/tps65218.c |  9 +++++----
>>>>>  drivers/mfd/tps6586x.c | 12 ++----------
>>>>
>>>> Are all of these drivers DT only?
>>>
>>> At least i did not find any platform code calling on to these drivers.
>>> No dependency on OF as such. Hence sent these 9.
>>
>> I can't accept these changes on any drivers which does not depend on
>> OF as a hard requirement.
> 
> Okay. So that is a per-requisite. At least palmas, tps65218, lp873x,
> tps65217 imho can have the OF dependency. I will post patches for that
> and then will resurrect this series.
> 
> Thanks for your feedback.

Tony,

I do not see any platform specific code for tps65218, tps65217 and
palmas. I believe they are all completely Device Tree based. Can i make
them depend on OF? It helps me clear up some unused data from their mfd
drivers.

Regards,
Keerthy
> 
> 
>>

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#1658601

FromTony Lindgren <tony@atomide.com>
Date2017-06-06 12:50 +0200
Message-ID<tPkdH-7xX-3@gated-at.bofh.it>
In reply to#1658462
* Keerthy <j-keerthy@ti.com> [170606 00:52]:
> On Tuesday 06 June 2017 01:00 PM, Keerthy wrote:
> > On Tuesday 06 June 2017 12:47 PM, Lee Jones wrote:
> >>>> Are all of these drivers DT only?
> >>>
> >>> At least i did not find any platform code calling on to these drivers.
> >>> No dependency on OF as such. Hence sent these 9.
> >>
> >> I can't accept these changes on any drivers which does not depend on
> >> OF as a hard requirement.
> > 
> > Okay. So that is a per-requisite. At least palmas, tps65218, lp873x,
> > tps65217 imho can have the OF dependency. I will post patches for that
> > and then will resurrect this series.
> > 
> > Thanks for your feedback.
> 
> Tony,
> 
> I do not see any platform specific code for tps65218, tps65217 and
> palmas. I believe they are all completely Device Tree based. Can i make
> them depend on OF? It helps me clear up some unused data from their mfd
> drivers.

Yes all of arch/arm/mach-omap2 is device tree only nowadays.
There may be other SoCs or architectures using these too,
but grepping for platform_data should reveal that.

Regards,

Tony

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#1658642

FromKeerthy <j-keerthy@ti.com>
Date2017-06-06 13:10 +0200
Message-ID<tPkx4-7Uz-33@gated-at.bofh.it>
In reply to#1658601

On Tuesday 06 June 2017 04:14 PM, Tony Lindgren wrote:
> * Keerthy <j-keerthy@ti.com> [170606 00:52]:
>> On Tuesday 06 June 2017 01:00 PM, Keerthy wrote:
>>> On Tuesday 06 June 2017 12:47 PM, Lee Jones wrote:
>>>>>> Are all of these drivers DT only?
>>>>>
>>>>> At least i did not find any platform code calling on to these drivers.
>>>>> No dependency on OF as such. Hence sent these 9.
>>>>
>>>> I can't accept these changes on any drivers which does not depend on
>>>> OF as a hard requirement.
>>>
>>> Okay. So that is a per-requisite. At least palmas, tps65218, lp873x,
>>> tps65217 imho can have the OF dependency. I will post patches for that
>>> and then will resurrect this series.
>>>
>>> Thanks for your feedback.
>>
>> Tony,
>>
>> I do not see any platform specific code for tps65218, tps65217 and
>> palmas. I believe they are all completely Device Tree based. Can i make
>> them depend on OF? It helps me clear up some unused data from their mfd
>> drivers.
> 
> Yes all of arch/arm/mach-omap2 is device tree only nowadays.
> There may be other SoCs or architectures using these too,
> but grepping for platform_data should reveal that.

Yes Tony. I did that for all the above mentioned devices. I did not find
any references apart from device tree folder under arch/ folder.

Apart from device tree folder and drivers/ folder i do not see any
instances of palmas, tps65218, tps65917, lp873x.

Shall i go ahead and introduce dependency on OF?

> 
> Regards,
> 
> Tony
>

[toc] | [prev] | [standalone]

Back to top | Article view | linux.kernel

csiph-web