[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <96f198cac01dbfd72d478e9965f02645@codeaurora.org>
Date: Tue, 18 Jul 2017 17:19:46 +0530
From: kgunda@...eaurora.org
To: Stephen Boyd <sboyd@...eaurora.org>
Cc: Abhijeet Dharmapurikar <adharmap@...eaurora.org>,
Christophe JAILLET <christophe.jaillet@...adoo.fr>,
Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
Subbaraman Narayanamurthy <subbaram@...eaurora.org>,
David Collins <collinsd@...eaurora.org>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-arm-msm@...r.kernel.org,
adharmap@...cinc.com, aghayal@....qualcomm.com,
linux-arm-msm-owner@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH V1 15/15] spmi: pmic-arb: instantiate spmi_devices at
arch_initcall
On 2017-06-01 03:37, Stephen Boyd wrote:
> On 05/30, Kiran Gunda wrote:
>> @@ -1384,7 +1384,12 @@ static int spmi_pmic_arb_remove(struct
>> platform_device *pdev)
>> .of_match_table = spmi_pmic_arb_match_table,
>> },
>> };
>> -module_platform_driver(spmi_pmic_arb_driver);
>> +
>> +int __init spmi_pmic_arb_init(void)
>
> Missing static.
>
>> +{
>> + return platform_driver_register(&spmi_pmic_arb_driver);
>> +}
>> +arch_initcall(spmi_pmic_arb_init);
>
> We also lost module removal. Probably nobody tests it, but still
> no mention of that in commit text.
>
> I'm not sure we need this at all though. Is there something that
> needs to probe early? Indicating what that is in the commit text
> would be helpful.
Dropped out this patch. As this is no more required.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists