linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] rtc: mt6397: Add platform device ID table

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <56CDE211.1000802@osg.samsung.com>
Date:	Wed, 24 Feb 2016 14:02:09 -0300
From:	Javier Martinez Canillas <javier@....samsung.com>
To:	Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>, linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org
Cc:	Eddie Huang <eddie.huang@...iatek.com>,
	Alessandro Zummo <a.zummo@...ertech.it>,
	rtc-linux@...glegroups.com, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	linux-mediatek@...ts.infradead.org,
	Alexandre Belloni <alexandre.belloni@...e-electrons.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] rtc: mt6397: Add platform device ID table

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@...iatek.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@...iatek.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