[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20240406163155.799f515a@jic23-huawei>
Date: Sat, 6 Apr 2024 16:31:55 +0100
From: Jonathan Cameron <jic23@...nel.org>
To: Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzysztof.kozlowski@...aro.org>
Cc: Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...nel.org>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
Lars-Peter Clausen <lars@...afoo.de>, Michael Hennerich
<Michael.Hennerich@...log.com>, Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>,
linux-iio@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 16/34] iio: ad5755: hook up of_device_id lookup to
platform driver
On Wed, 3 Apr 2024 11:55:06 +0200
Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzysztof.kozlowski@...aro.org> wrote:
> On 03/04/2024 10:06, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
> > From: Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>
> >
> > When the driver is built-in, 'make W=1' warns about an unused
> > ID table:
> >
> > drivers/iio/dac/ad5755.c:866:34: error: 'ad5755_of_match' defined but not used [-Werror=unused-const-variable=]
> > 866 | static const struct of_device_id ad5755_of_match[] = {
> >
> > While the data is duplicated in the spi_device_id, it's common
> > to use the actual OF compatible strings in the driver.
> >
> > Since there are no in-tree users of plain platform devices, the
> > spi_device_id table could actually be dropped entirely with this.
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>
> > ---
> > drivers/iio/dac/ad5755.c | 1 +
> > 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+)
> >
> > diff --git a/drivers/iio/dac/ad5755.c b/drivers/iio/dac/ad5755.c
> > index 404865e35460..5c1e7f428c25 100644
> > --- a/drivers/iio/dac/ad5755.c
> > +++ b/drivers/iio/dac/ad5755.c
> > @@ -876,6 +876,7 @@ MODULE_DEVICE_TABLE(of, ad5755_of_match);
> > static struct spi_driver ad5755_driver = {
> > .driver = {
> > .name = "ad5755",
> > + .of_match_table = ad5755_of_match,
>
> I was working on this as well and have a bit bigger solution, following
> Jonathan's preference (I think):
>
> https://lore.kernel.org/all/20240226192555.14aa178e@jic23-huawei/
>
> I need to send v3, somehow I missed his comments.
>
> Jonathan,
> Do you want me to still work on this according to your comments (which I
> missed, I am sorry).
No problem on missing the reply! (I'd forgotten all about this!)
I would prefer that solution to this one that relies on the two
tables having equivalent entries. So I'll not pick up this patch.
Thanks,
Jonathan
>
> Best regards,
> Krzysztof
>
Powered by blists - more mailing lists