[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CAA8EJppVGAQ_OLGbsor67c4MdL4kTVL-9O+geX8AcKEjL9s92w@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 19 Dec 2022 18:49:39 +0200
From: Dmitry Baryshkov <dmitry.baryshkov@...aro.org>
To: Manivannan Sadhasivam <manivannan.sadhasivam@...aro.org>
Cc: Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzysztof.kozlowski@...aro.org>,
Andrew Halaney <ahalaney@...hat.com>, andersson@...nel.org,
robh+dt@...nel.org, krzysztof.kozlowski+dt@...aro.org,
bp@...en8.de, tony.luck@...el.com, quic_saipraka@...cinc.com,
konrad.dybcio@...aro.org, linux-arm-msm@...r.kernel.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, james.morse@....com,
mchehab@...nel.org, rric@...nel.org, linux-edac@...r.kernel.org,
quic_ppareek@...cinc.com, luca.weiss@...rphone.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 00/13] Qcom: LLCC/EDAC: Fix base address used for LLCC banks
On Mon, 19 Dec 2022 at 16:17, Manivannan Sadhasivam
<manivannan.sadhasivam@...aro.org> wrote:
>
> On Mon, Dec 19, 2022 at 03:11:36PM +0100, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote:
> > On 19/12/2022 14:50, Manivannan Sadhasivam wrote:
> > >
> > >>> Also, the id table is
> > >>> an overkill since there is only one driver that is making use of it. And
> > >>> moreover, there is no definite ID to use.
> > >>
> > >> Every driver with a single device support has usually ID table and it's
> > >> not a problem...
> > >>
> > >
> > > Are you referring to OF/ACPI ID table? Or something else?
> >
> > No, I refer to the driver ID table (I2C, platform whatever the driver is).
> >
>
> Yeah, that's what I wanted to avoid here. The ID table makes sense if you have
> a bus like I2C or a separate subsystem but here LLCC is an individual driver.
> So creating a separate ID table is an overkill IMO.
Well, struct platform_device_id is used quite a lot together with the
MODULE_DEVICE_TABLE(platform, _ids);
On the other hand:
$ git grep MODULE_ALIAS.*platform: | wc -l
1308
$ git grep MODULE_DEVICE_TABLE.*platform | wc -l
236
--
With best wishes
Dmitry
Powered by blists - more mailing lists