[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20200128194555.324cff21@kemnade.info>
Date: Tue, 28 Jan 2020 19:45:55 +0100
From: Andreas Kemnade <andreas@...nade.info>
To: lee.jones@...aro.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] mfd: rn5t618: cleanup i2c_device_id
Hi,
just re-checking the patch again. Seems that I have added it on top of my RTC
series. It breaks because of...
On Wed, 11 Dec 2019 22:57:31 +0100
Andreas Kemnade <andreas@...nade.info> wrote:
> That list was just empty, so it can be removed if .probe_new
> instead of .probe is used
>
> Suggested-by: Lee Jones <lee.jones@...aro.org>
> Signed-off-by: Andreas Kemnade <andreas@...nade.info>
> ---
> drivers/mfd/rn5t618.c | 11 ++---------
> 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 9 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/drivers/mfd/rn5t618.c b/drivers/mfd/rn5t618.c
> index 18d56a732b20..70d52b46ee8a 100644
> --- a/drivers/mfd/rn5t618.c
> +++ b/drivers/mfd/rn5t618.c
> @@ -150,8 +150,7 @@ static const struct of_device_id rn5t618_of_match[] = {
> };
> MODULE_DEVICE_TABLE(of, rn5t618_of_match);
>
> -static int rn5t618_i2c_probe(struct i2c_client *i2c,
> - const struct i2c_device_id *id)
> +static int rn5t618_i2c_probe(struct i2c_client *i2c)
> {
> const struct of_device_id *of_id;
> struct rn5t618 *priv;
> @@ -251,11 +250,6 @@ static int __maybe_unused rn5t618_i2c_resume(struct device *dev)
> return 0;
> }
>
I added the pm stuff above ...
> -static const struct i2c_device_id rn5t618_i2c_id[] = {
> - { }
> -};
> -MODULE_DEVICE_TABLE(i2c, rn5t618_i2c_id);
> -
and below it in my RTC series.
> static SIMPLE_DEV_PM_OPS(rn5t618_i2c_dev_pm_ops,
> rn5t618_i2c_suspend,
> rn5t618_i2c_resume);
Do you want to have it rebased so it can be applied first?
Sorry for the confusion here.
Regards,
Andreas
Content of type "application/pgp-signature" skipped
Powered by blists - more mailing lists