[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <turfqcpjz2dxrng73v5iphpsh3pvhhv73guo4m2vvzplqycsa3@iyrzsimppo57>
Date: Wed, 16 Oct 2024 11:42:49 +0200
From: Uwe Kleine-König <u.kleine-koenig@...libre.com>
To: Ciprian Costea <ciprianmarian.costea@....nxp.com>
Cc: Alexandre Belloni <alexandre.belloni@...tlin.com>,
Rob Herring <robh@...nel.org>, Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzk+dt@...nel.org>,
Conor Dooley <conor+dt@...nel.org>, Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@....com>,
Will Deacon <will@...nel.org>, linux-rtc@...r.kernel.org, devicetree@...r.kernel.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org,
NXP S32 Linux Team <s32@....com>, Christophe Lizzi <clizzi@...hat.com>,
Alberto Ruiz <aruizrui@...hat.com>, Enric Balletbo <eballetb@...hat.com>,
Bogdan Hamciuc <bogdan.hamciuc@....com>, Ghennadi Procopciuc <Ghennadi.Procopciuc@....com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 2/4] rtc: s32g: add NXP S32G2/S32G3 SoC support
Hello,
On Tue, Oct 15, 2024 at 01:51:31PM +0300, Ciprian Costea wrote:
> +static void rtc_disable(struct rtc_priv *priv)
A very generic name for a driver specific function. I'm a big fan of
driver specific prefixes and I wonder why this isn't called
s34g_rtc_disable().
Also a comment about what is actually disabled here would be nice (or
maybe a better name). I hope this doesn't stop the RTC ticking??
> +static struct platform_driver rtc_driver = {
> + .driver = {
> + .name = "s32g-rtc",
> + .pm = &rtc_pm_ops,
> + .of_match_table = rtc_dt_ids,
> + },
> + .probe = rtc_probe,
> + .remove_new = rtc_remove,
> +};
After commit 0edb555a65d1 ("platform: Make platform_driver::remove()
return void") .remove() is (again) the right callback to implement for
platform drivers. Please just drop "_new".
Best regards
Uwe
Download attachment "signature.asc" of type "application/pgp-signature" (489 bytes)
Powered by blists - more mailing lists