RE: [PATCH 1/3] gpio: zynq: use module_platform_driver to simplify the code

From: Srinivas Neeli <sneeli@xilinx.com>
To: Bartosz Golaszewski <bgolaszewski@baylibre.com>,
	Andy Shevchenko <andy.shevchenko@gmail.com>
Cc: "linus.walleij@linaro.org" <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-gpio@vger.kernel.org>,
	"linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org" 
	<linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org>,
	"linux-kernel@vger.kernel.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
Date: Wed, 14 Apr 2021 14:45:55 +0000	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <DM6PR02MB5386CADF5A10EF28A640AD76AF4E9@DM6PR02MB5386.namprd02.prod.outlook.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <CAMpxmJW=HWf_NxGpfBkX=utgOTs4+6RtypxnKGtpuYnX=t8rGQ@mail.gmail.com>

HI baratosz and Andy,

> -----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/

Thanks
Srinivas Neeli

> Bartosz