* [PATCH] rtc: mt6397: Add platform device ID table
@ 2016-02-15 1:58 ` Eddie Huang
0 siblings, 0 replies; 24+ messages in thread
From: Eddie Huang @ 2016-02-15 1:58 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: linux-arm-kernel
On Tue, 2016-02-09 at 08:08 -0300, Javier Martinez Canillas wrote:
> The platform bus_type .match callback attempts to match the platform device
> name with an entry on the .id_table if provided and fallbacks to match with
> the driver's name if a table is not provided.
>
> Using a platform device ID to match is more explicit, allows the driver to
> support more than one device and also the MODULE_DEVICE_TABLE macro can be
> used to export the module aliases information instead of the MODULE_ALIAS.
>
> Signed-off-by: Javier Martinez Canillas <javier@osg.samsung.com>
>
> ---
>
> drivers/rtc/rtc-mt6397.c | 8 +++++++-
> 1 file changed, 7 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
>
> diff --git a/drivers/rtc/rtc-mt6397.c b/drivers/rtc/rtc-mt6397.c
> index 06a5c52b292f..46533f11f7fc 100644
> --- a/drivers/rtc/rtc-mt6397.c
> +++ b/drivers/rtc/rtc-mt6397.c
> @@ -404,6 +404,12 @@ static const struct of_device_id mt6397_rtc_of_match[] = {
> };
> MODULE_DEVICE_TABLE(of, mt6397_rtc_of_match);
>
> +static const struct platform_device_id mt6397_rtc_id[] = {
> + {"mt6397-rtc", 0},
> + { /* sentinel */ },
> +};
> +MODULE_DEVICE_TABLE(platform, mt6397_rtc_id);
> +
> static struct platform_driver mtk_rtc_driver = {
> .driver = {
> .name = "mt6397-rtc",
> @@ -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 ?
Eddie
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 24+ messages in thread* Re: [PATCH] rtc: mt6397: Add platform device ID table
@ 2016-02-15 1:58 ` Eddie Huang
0 siblings, 0 replies; 24+ messages in thread
From: Eddie Huang @ 2016-02-15 1:58 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Javier Martinez Canillas
Cc: linux-kernel, Alessandro Zummo, rtc-linux, Alexandre Belloni,
linux-mediatek, linux-arm-kernel
On Tue, 2016-02-09 at 08:08 -0300, Javier Martinez Canillas wrote:
> The platform bus_type .match callback attempts to match the platform device
> name with an entry on the .id_table if provided and fallbacks to match with
> the driver's name if a table is not provided.
>
> Using a platform device ID to match is more explicit, allows the driver to
> support more than one device and also the MODULE_DEVICE_TABLE macro can be
> used to export the module aliases information instead of the MODULE_ALIAS.
>
> Signed-off-by: Javier Martinez Canillas <javier@osg.samsung.com>
>
> ---
>
> drivers/rtc/rtc-mt6397.c | 8 +++++++-
> 1 file changed, 7 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
>
> diff --git a/drivers/rtc/rtc-mt6397.c b/drivers/rtc/rtc-mt6397.c
> index 06a5c52b292f..46533f11f7fc 100644
> --- a/drivers/rtc/rtc-mt6397.c
> +++ b/drivers/rtc/rtc-mt6397.c
> @@ -404,6 +404,12 @@ static const struct of_device_id mt6397_rtc_of_match[] = {
> };
> MODULE_DEVICE_TABLE(of, mt6397_rtc_of_match);
>
> +static const struct platform_device_id mt6397_rtc_id[] = {
> + {"mt6397-rtc", 0},
> + { /* sentinel */ },
> +};
> +MODULE_DEVICE_TABLE(platform, mt6397_rtc_id);
> +
> static struct platform_driver mtk_rtc_driver = {
> .driver = {
> .name = "mt6397-rtc",
> @@ -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 ?
Eddie
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 24+ messages in thread* [rtc-linux] Re: [PATCH] rtc: mt6397: Add platform device ID table
@ 2016-02-15 1:58 ` Eddie Huang
0 siblings, 0 replies; 24+ messages in thread
From: Eddie Huang @ 2016-02-15 1:58 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Javier Martinez Canillas
Cc: linux-kernel, Alessandro Zummo, rtc-linux, Alexandre Belloni,
linux-mediatek, linux-arm-kernel
On Tue, 2016-02-09 at 08:08 -0300, Javier Martinez Canillas wrote:
> The platform bus_type .match callback attempts to match the platform device
> name with an entry on the .id_table if provided and fallbacks to match with
> the driver's name if a table is not provided.
>
> Using a platform device ID to match is more explicit, allows the driver to
> support more than one device and also the MODULE_DEVICE_TABLE macro can be
> used to export the module aliases information instead of the MODULE_ALIAS.
>
> Signed-off-by: Javier Martinez Canillas <javier@osg.samsung.com>
>
> ---
>
> drivers/rtc/rtc-mt6397.c | 8 +++++++-
> 1 file changed, 7 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
>
> diff --git a/drivers/rtc/rtc-mt6397.c b/drivers/rtc/rtc-mt6397.c
> index 06a5c52b292f..46533f11f7fc 100644
> --- a/drivers/rtc/rtc-mt6397.c
> +++ b/drivers/rtc/rtc-mt6397.c
> @@ -404,6 +404,12 @@ static const struct of_device_id mt6397_rtc_of_match[] = {
> };
> MODULE_DEVICE_TABLE(of, mt6397_rtc_of_match);
>
> +static const struct platform_device_id mt6397_rtc_id[] = {
> + {"mt6397-rtc", 0},
> + { /* sentinel */ },
> +};
> +MODULE_DEVICE_TABLE(platform, mt6397_rtc_id);
> +
> static struct platform_driver mtk_rtc_driver = {
> .driver = {
> .name = "mt6397-rtc",
> @@ -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 ?
Eddie
--
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to "rtc-linux".
Membership options at http://groups.google.com/group/rtc-linux .
Please read http://groups.google.com/group/rtc-linux/web/checklist
before submitting a driver.
---
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "rtc-linux" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to rtc-linux+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 24+ messages in thread* Re: [PATCH] rtc: mt6397: Add platform device ID table
2016-02-15 1:58 ` [rtc-linux] " Eddie Huang
(?)
@ 2016-02-15 14:50 ` Javier Martinez Canillas
-1 siblings, 0 replies; 24+ messages in thread
From: Javier Martinez Canillas @ 2016-02-15 14:50 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Eddie Huang
Cc: linux-kernel, Alessandro Zummo, rtc-linux, Alexandre Belloni,
linux-mediatek, linux-arm-kernel
Hello Eddie,
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.
> Eddie
>
>
Best regards,
--
Javier Martinez Canillas
Open Source Group
Samsung Research America
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 24+ messages in thread* [PATCH] rtc: mt6397: Add platform device ID table
@ 2016-02-15 14:50 ` Javier Martinez Canillas
0 siblings, 0 replies; 24+ messages in thread
From: Javier Martinez Canillas @ 2016-02-15 14:50 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: linux-arm-kernel
Hello Eddie,
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.
> Eddie
>
>
Best regards,
--
Javier Martinez Canillas
Open Source Group
Samsung Research America
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 24+ messages in thread* [rtc-linux] Re: [PATCH] rtc: mt6397: Add platform device ID table
@ 2016-02-15 14:50 ` Javier Martinez Canillas
0 siblings, 0 replies; 24+ messages in thread
From: Javier Martinez Canillas @ 2016-02-15 14:50 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Eddie Huang
Cc: linux-kernel, Alessandro Zummo, rtc-linux, Alexandre Belloni,
linux-mediatek, linux-arm-kernel
Hello Eddie,
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.
> Eddie
>
>
Best regards,
--
Javier Martinez Canillas
Open Source Group
Samsung Research America
--
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to "rtc-linux".
Membership options at http://groups.google.com/group/rtc-linux .
Please read http://groups.google.com/group/rtc-linux/web/checklist
before submitting a driver.
---
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "rtc-linux" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to rtc-linux+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 24+ messages in thread* Re: [PATCH] rtc: mt6397: Add platform device ID table
2016-02-15 14:50 ` [rtc-linux] " Javier Martinez Canillas
(?)
(?)
@ 2016-02-16 11:37 ` Arnd Bergmann
-1 siblings, 0 replies; 24+ messages in thread
From: Arnd Bergmann @ 2016-02-16 11:37 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: linux-arm-kernel
Cc: Javier Martinez Canillas, Eddie Huang, Alessandro Zummo,
rtc-linux, linux-kernel, linux-mediatek, Alexandre Belloni
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.
Arnd
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 24+ messages in thread* [PATCH] rtc: mt6397: Add platform device ID table
@ 2016-02-16 11:37 ` Arnd Bergmann
0 siblings, 0 replies; 24+ messages in thread
From: Arnd Bergmann @ 2016-02-16 11:37 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: linux-arm-kernel
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.
Arnd
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 24+ messages in thread* Re: [PATCH] rtc: mt6397: Add platform device ID table
@ 2016-02-16 11:37 ` Arnd Bergmann
0 siblings, 0 replies; 24+ messages in thread
From: Arnd Bergmann @ 2016-02-16 11:37 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: linux-arm-kernel-IAPFreCvJWM7uuMidbF8XUB+6BGkLq7r
Cc: Alessandro Zummo, rtc-linux-/JYPxA39Uh5TLH3MbocFFw,
linux-kernel-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA, Javier Martinez Canillas,
linux-mediatek-IAPFreCvJWM7uuMidbF8XUB+6BGkLq7r,
Alexandre Belloni, Eddie Huang
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-NuS5LvNUpcJWk0Htik3J/w@public.gmane.org>");
> >> 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.
Arnd
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 24+ messages in thread* [rtc-linux] Re: [PATCH] rtc: mt6397: Add platform device ID table
@ 2016-02-16 11:37 ` Arnd Bergmann
0 siblings, 0 replies; 24+ messages in thread
From: Arnd Bergmann @ 2016-02-16 11:37 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: linux-arm-kernel
Cc: Javier Martinez Canillas, Eddie Huang, Alessandro Zummo,
rtc-linux, linux-kernel, linux-mediatek, Alexandre Belloni
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.
Arnd
--
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to "rtc-linux".
Membership options at http://groups.google.com/group/rtc-linux .
Please read http://groups.google.com/group/rtc-linux/web/checklist
before submitting a driver.
---
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "rtc-linux" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to rtc-linux+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 24+ messages in thread* Re: [PATCH] rtc: mt6397: Add platform device ID table
2016-02-16 11:37 ` [rtc-linux] " Arnd Bergmann
(?)
(?)
@ 2016-02-16 13:19 ` Eddie Huang
-1 siblings, 0 replies; 24+ messages in thread
From: Eddie Huang @ 2016-02-16 13:19 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Arnd Bergmann
Cc: linux-arm-kernel, Javier Martinez Canillas, Alessandro Zummo,
rtc-linux, linux-kernel, linux-mediatek, Alexandre Belloni
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>
Eddie
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 24+ messages in thread* [PATCH] rtc: mt6397: Add platform device ID table
@ 2016-02-16 13:19 ` Eddie Huang
0 siblings, 0 replies; 24+ messages in thread
From: Eddie Huang @ 2016-02-16 13:19 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: linux-arm-kernel
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>
Eddie
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 24+ messages in thread* Re: [PATCH] rtc: mt6397: Add platform device ID table
@ 2016-02-16 13:19 ` Eddie Huang
0 siblings, 0 replies; 24+ messages in thread
From: Eddie Huang @ 2016-02-16 13:19 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Arnd Bergmann
Cc: linux-arm-kernel, Javier Martinez Canillas, Alessandro Zummo,
rtc-linux, linux-kernel, linux-mediatek, Alexandre Belloni
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>
Eddie
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 24+ messages in thread* [rtc-linux] Re: [PATCH] rtc: mt6397: Add platform device ID table
@ 2016-02-16 13:19 ` Eddie Huang
0 siblings, 0 replies; 24+ messages in thread
From: Eddie Huang @ 2016-02-16 13:19 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Arnd Bergmann
Cc: linux-arm-kernel, Javier Martinez Canillas, Alessandro Zummo,
rtc-linux, linux-kernel, linux-mediatek, Alexandre Belloni
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>
Eddie
--
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to "rtc-linux".
Membership options at http://groups.google.com/group/rtc-linux .
Please read http://groups.google.com/group/rtc-linux/web/checklist
before submitting a driver.
---
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "rtc-linux" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to rtc-linux+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 24+ messages in thread* Re: [PATCH] rtc: mt6397: Add platform device ID table
2016-02-16 13:19 ` [rtc-linux] " Eddie Huang
(?)
@ 2016-02-24 16:56 ` Arnd Bergmann
-1 siblings, 0 replies; 24+ messages in thread
From: Arnd Bergmann @ 2016-02-24 16:56 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: linux-arm-kernel
Cc: Eddie Huang, Alessandro Zummo, rtc-linux, linux-kernel,
Javier Martinez Canillas, linux-mediatek, Alexandre Belloni
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
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 24+ messages in thread* [PATCH] rtc: mt6397: Add platform device ID table
@ 2016-02-24 16:56 ` Arnd Bergmann
0 siblings, 0 replies; 24+ messages in thread
From: Arnd Bergmann @ 2016-02-24 16:56 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: linux-arm-kernel
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
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 24+ messages in thread* [rtc-linux] Re: [PATCH] rtc: mt6397: Add platform device ID table
@ 2016-02-24 16:56 ` Arnd Bergmann
0 siblings, 0 replies; 24+ messages in thread
From: Arnd Bergmann @ 2016-02-24 16:56 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: linux-arm-kernel
Cc: Eddie Huang, Alessandro Zummo, rtc-linux, linux-kernel,
Javier Martinez Canillas, linux-mediatek, Alexandre Belloni
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
--
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to "rtc-linux".
Membership options at http://groups.google.com/group/rtc-linux .
Please read http://groups.google.com/group/rtc-linux/web/checklist
before submitting a driver.
---
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "rtc-linux" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to rtc-linux+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 24+ messages in thread* Re: [PATCH] rtc: mt6397: Add platform device ID table
2016-02-24 16:56 ` [rtc-linux] " Arnd Bergmann
(?)
@ 2016-02-24 17:02 ` Javier Martinez Canillas
-1 siblings, 0 replies; 24+ messages in thread
From: Javier Martinez Canillas @ 2016-02-24 17:02 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Arnd Bergmann, linux-arm-kernel
Cc: Eddie Huang, Alessandro Zummo, rtc-linux, linux-kernel,
linux-mediatek, Alexandre Belloni
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
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 24+ messages in thread* [PATCH] rtc: mt6397: Add platform device ID table
@ 2016-02-24 17:02 ` Javier Martinez Canillas
0 siblings, 0 replies; 24+ messages in thread
From: Javier Martinez Canillas @ 2016-02-24 17:02 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: linux-arm-kernel
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
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 24+ messages in thread* [rtc-linux] Re: [PATCH] rtc: mt6397: Add platform device ID table
@ 2016-02-24 17:02 ` Javier Martinez Canillas
0 siblings, 0 replies; 24+ messages in thread
From: Javier Martinez Canillas @ 2016-02-24 17:02 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Arnd Bergmann, linux-arm-kernel
Cc: Eddie Huang, Alessandro Zummo, rtc-linux, linux-kernel,
linux-mediatek, Alexandre Belloni
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
--
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to "rtc-linux".
Membership options at http://groups.google.com/group/rtc-linux .
Please read http://groups.google.com/group/rtc-linux/web/checklist
before submitting a driver.
---
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "rtc-linux" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to rtc-linux+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 24+ messages in thread