Messages in this thread | | | Subject | Re: [PATCH] rtc: mt6397: Add platform device ID table | From | Javier Martinez Canillas <> | Date | Wed, 24 Feb 2016 14:02:09 -0300 |
| |
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
| |