Messages in this thread | | | From | Srinivas Neeli <> | Subject | RE: [PATCH 1/3] gpio: zynq: use module_platform_driver to simplify the code | Date | Mon, 14 Jun 2021 10:39:23 +0000 |
| |
Hi,
> -----Original Message----- > From: Bartosz Golaszewski <bgolaszewski@baylibre.com> > Sent: Friday, April 16, 2021 11:58 PM > To: Srinivas Neeli <sneeli@xilinx.com> > Cc: Andy Shevchenko <andy.shevchenko@gmail.com>; > linus.walleij@linaro.org; Michal Simek <michals@xilinx.com>; Shubhrajyoti > Datta <shubhraj@xilinx.com>; Srinivas Goud <sgoud@xilinx.com>; linux- > gpio@vger.kernel.org; linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org; linux- > kernel@vger.kernel.org; git <git@xilinx.com> > Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/3] gpio: zynq: use module_platform_driver to simplify > the code > > On Wed, Apr 14, 2021 at 4:45 PM Srinivas Neeli <sneeli@xilinx.com> wrote: > > > > HI baratosz and Andy, > > > > It's Bartosz. You literally just need to copy & paste the name from my email... > > > > -----Original Message----- > > > From: Bartosz Golaszewski <bgolaszewski@baylibre.com> > > > Sent: Tuesday, April 13, 2021 4:14 PM > > > To: Andy Shevchenko <andy.shevchenko@gmail.com> > > > Cc: Srinivas Neeli <sneeli@xilinx.com>; linus.walleij@linaro.org; > > > Michal Simek <michals@xilinx.com>; Shubhrajyoti Datta > > > <shubhraj@xilinx.com>; Srinivas Goud <sgoud@xilinx.com>; > > > linux-gpio@vger.kernel.org; linux-arm- kernel@lists.infradead.org; > > > linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org; git <git@xilinx.com> > > > Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/3] gpio: zynq: use module_platform_driver to > > > simplify the code > > > > > > On Sat, Apr 10, 2021 at 12:08 AM Andy Shevchenko > > > <andy.shevchenko@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Friday, April 9, 2021, Srinivas Neeli <srinivas.neeli@xilinx.com> > wrote: > > > >> > > > >> module_platform_driver() makes the code simpler by eliminating > > > >> boilerplate code. > > > >> > > > >> Signed-off-by: Srinivas Neeli <srinivas.neeli@xilinx.com> > > > >> --- > > > >> drivers/gpio/gpio-zynq.c | 17 +---------------- > > > >> 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 16 deletions(-) > > > >> > > > >> diff --git a/drivers/gpio/gpio-zynq.c b/drivers/gpio/gpio-zynq.c > > > >> index 3521c1dc3ac0..bb1ac0c5cf26 100644 > > > >> --- a/drivers/gpio/gpio-zynq.c > > > >> +++ b/drivers/gpio/gpio-zynq.c > > > >> @@ -1020,22 +1020,7 @@ static struct platform_driver > > > >> zynq_gpio_driver > > > = { > > > >> .remove = zynq_gpio_remove, }; > > > >> > > > >> -/** > > > >> - * zynq_gpio_init - Initial driver registration call > > > >> - * > > > >> - * Return: value from platform_driver_register > > > >> - */ > > > >> -static int __init zynq_gpio_init(void) -{ > > > >> - return platform_driver_register(&zynq_gpio_driver); > > > >> -} > > > >> -postcore_initcall(zynq_gpio_init); > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > It’s not an equivalent. Have you tested on actual hardware? If no, > > > > there is > > > no go for this change. > > > > > > > > > > Yep, this has been like this since the initial introduction of this driver. > > > Unfortunately there's no documented reason so unless we can test it, > > > it has to stay this way. > > > > > I tested driver, functionality wise everything working fine. > > Based on below conversation, I moved driver to module driver. > > https://lore.kernel.org/patchwork/patch/818202/ > > > > Andy: How about we give it a try then? If anyone yells, we'll just revert it.
Could you please apply this series to gpio for-next branch if there are no issues .
> > > Thanks > > Srinivas Neeli > > > > > Bartosz > > Bartosz
Thanks Srinivas Neeli
| |