Messages in this thread | | | Date | Sat, 18 Apr 2020 14:10:12 +0200 | From | Paul Cercueil <> | Subject | Re: [RESEND PATCH v5 5/5] input: joystick: Add ADC attached joystick driver. |
| |
Le sam. 18 avril 2020 à 14:57, Andy Shevchenko <andy.shevchenko@gmail.com> a écrit : > On Sat, Apr 18, 2020 at 1:48 AM Paul Cercueil <paul@crapouillou.net> > wrote: >> >> >> >> Le sam. 18 avril 2020 à 0:49, Andy Shevchenko >> <andy.shevchenko@gmail.com> a écrit : >> > On Sat, Apr 18, 2020 at 12:24 AM Paul Cercueil >> <paul@crapouillou.net> >> > wrote: >> >> Le sam. 18 avril 2020 à 0:10, Andy Shevchenko >> >> <andy.shevchenko@gmail.com> a écrit : >> >> > On Fri, Apr 17, 2020 at 11:21 PM Artur Rojek >> >> <contact@artur-rojek.eu> >> >> > wrote: >> > >> > ... >> > >> >> >> +#include <linux/of.h> >> >> > >> >> > Do you really need this? (See below as well) >> > >> >> >> +static const struct of_device_id adc_joystick_of_match[] = >> { >> >> >> + { .compatible = "adc-joystick", }, >> >> >> + { }, >> >> >> +}; >> >> >> +MODULE_DEVICE_TABLE(of, adc_joystick_of_match); >> >> >> + >> >> >> +static struct platform_driver adc_joystick_driver = { >> >> >> + .driver = { >> >> >> + .name = "adc-joystick", >> >> > >> >> >> + .of_match_table = >> >> >> of_match_ptr(adc_joystick_of_match), >> >> > >> >> > Drop this a bit harmful of_match_ptr() macro. It should go >> with >> >> ugly >> >> > #ifdeffery. Here you simple introduced a compiler warning. >> >> >> >> I assume you mean #ifdef around the of_device_id + module table >> >> macro? >> > >> > Yes. >> > >> >> > On top of that, you are using device property API, OF use in >> this >> >> case >> >> > is contradictory (at lest to some extend). >> >> >> >> I don't see why. The fact that the driver can work when probed >> from >> >> platform code >> > >> > Ha-ha, tell me how. I would like to be very surprised. >> >> iio_map_array_register(), >> pinctrl_register_mappings(), >> platform_add_devices(), >> >> you're welcome. > > I think above has no relation to what I'm talking about.
Yes it does. It allows you to map the IIO channels, set the pinctrl configurations and register a device from platform code instead of devicetree.
> How *this* driver can work as a platform instantiated one? > We seems have a conceptual misunderstanding here. > > For example, how can probe of this driver not fail, if it is not > backed by a DT/ACPI properties?
platform_device_add_properties().
> >> >> doesn't mean that it shouldn't have a table to probe >> >> from devicetree. >> > >> > I didn't get what you are talking about here. The idea of >> _unified_ >> > device property API is to get rid of OF-centric code in favour of >> more >> > generic approach. Mixing those two can be done only in specific >> cases >> > (here is not the one). >> >> And how are we mixing those two here? The only OF-centric thing >> here is >> the device table, which is required if we want the driver to probe >> from >> devicetree. > > Table is fine(JFYI the types and sections are defined outside of OF > stuff, though being [heavily] used by it) , API (of_match_ptr() macro > use) is not.
Sorry, but that's just stupid. Please have a look at how of_match_ptr() macro is defined in <linux/of.h>.
-Paul
| |