From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1753967AbbHCOHh (ORCPT ); Mon, 3 Aug 2015 10:07:37 -0400 Received: from lists.s-osg.org ([54.187.51.154]:55760 "EHLO lists.s-osg.org" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1752906AbbHCOHg (ORCPT ); Mon, 3 Aug 2015 10:07:36 -0400 Subject: Re: [PATCH 06/27] misc: eeprom: Export I2C module alias information in missing drivers To: Jean Delvare References: <1438273132-20926-1-git-send-email-javier@osg.samsung.com> <1438273132-20926-7-git-send-email-javier@osg.samsung.com> <20150803130550.12487244@endymion.delvare> From: Javier Martinez Canillas X-Enigmail-Draft-Status: N1110 Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Message-ID: <55BF75A2.90200@osg.samsung.com> Date: Mon, 3 Aug 2015 16:07:30 +0200 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:38.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/38.0.1 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <20150803130550.12487244@endymion.delvare> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Hello Jean, On 08/03/2015 01:05 PM, Jean Delvare wrote: > Hi Javier, > > On Thu, 30 Jul 2015 18:18:31 +0200, Javier Martinez Canillas wrote: >> The I2C core always reports the MODALIAS uevent as "i2c:> regardless if the driver was matched using the I2C id_table or the >> of_match_table. So the driver needs to export the I2C table and this >> be built into the module or udev won't have the necessary information >> to auto load the correct module when the device is added. >> >> Signed-off-by: Javier Martinez Canillas >> >> --- >> >> drivers/misc/eeprom/eeprom.c | 1 + >> drivers/misc/eeprom/max6875.c | 1 + >> 2 files changed, 2 insertions(+) >> >> diff --git a/drivers/misc/eeprom/eeprom.c b/drivers/misc/eeprom/eeprom.c >> index b432873def96..4bb54e1c40a7 100644 >> --- a/drivers/misc/eeprom/eeprom.c >> +++ b/drivers/misc/eeprom/eeprom.c >> @@ -203,6 +203,7 @@ static const struct i2c_device_id eeprom_id[] = { >> { "eeprom", 0 }, >> { } >> }; >> +MODULE_DEVICE_TABLE(i2c, eeprom_id); >> >> static struct i2c_driver eeprom_driver = { >> .driver = { > > I seem to recall this one is missing on purpose. The legacy eeprom > driver is deprecated in favor of the at24 driver, so no one should > declare "eeprom" i2c devices and thus the module alias is useless. So I > would leave the legacy eeprom driver alone. > > The only feature the at24 driver is missing is device auto-detection as > far as I know. Maybe it should be added to ease the transition. Or > maybe not, I admit I'm not sure. > It's up to you but since the driver is still in mainline and it has an i2c_device_id table, an "eeprom" I2C device can be registered and matched by the I2C core but if built as a module, it won't be autoloaded. I'm not familiar with the at24 platform so feel free to discard the patch if you think that it is not needed and no one is really using this driver (although in that case I think we the driver should just be removed). >> diff --git a/drivers/misc/eeprom/max6875.c b/drivers/misc/eeprom/max6875.c >> index 580ff9df5529..c74920cc3d18 100644 >> --- a/drivers/misc/eeprom/max6875.c >> +++ b/drivers/misc/eeprom/max6875.c >> @@ -197,6 +197,7 @@ static const struct i2c_device_id max6875_id[] = { >> { "max6875", 0 }, >> { } >> }; >> +MODULE_DEVICE_TABLE(i2c, max6875_id); >> >> static struct i2c_driver max6875_driver = { >> .driver = { > > That one is needed, I agree. > > Reviewed-by: Jean Delvare > Best regards, -- Javier Martinez Canillas Open Source Group Samsung Research America