From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Javier Martinez Canillas Subject: Re: [PATCH 18/18] spi: (RFC, don't apply) report OF style modalias when probing using DT Date: Fri, 21 Aug 2015 01:47:00 +0200 Message-ID: <55D666F4.2080801@osg.samsung.com> References: <1440054451-1223-1-git-send-email-javier@osg.samsung.com> <1440054451-1223-19-git-send-email-javier@osg.samsung.com> <20150820183634.GN12027@sirena.org.uk> <20150820210822.GH74600@google.com> <55D64A65.7030905@osg.samsung.com> <20150820232517.GZ12027@sirena.org.uk> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: Brian Norris , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Javier Martinez Canillas , linux-spi@vger.kernel.org To: Mark Brown Return-path: In-Reply-To: <20150820232517.GZ12027@sirena.org.uk> Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-Id: linux-spi.vger.kernel.org Hello Mark, On 08/21/2015 01:25 AM, Mark Brown wrote: > On Thu, Aug 20, 2015 at 11:45:09PM +0200, Javier Martinez Canillas wrote: >> On 08/20/2015 11:08 PM, Brian Norris wrote: > >>>> This is tagged as something that can't be applied but you've not >>>> explained why it can't be applied or what comments might be useful :( > >> As Brian pointed out it was in the cover letter so I thought it would >> just be duplicated information. But you are right, I should had added >> a brief note as well just to make the patch self contained. > > Right, a big part of what I was looking for was something about why this > is an incompatible change in the changelog so that once it gets applied > someone with out of tree code which gets broken can see what happens. Yes, you are absolutely right. When I finally post this as a proper patch I'll make sure to have a big NOTE so people can track module autoload issues for OF drivers down to this commit. > Plus... > >>> I believe that's mostly addressed in the cover letter [1]. > >>> Patch #18 changes the logic of spi_uevent() to report an OF modalias >>> if the device was registered using OF. But this patch is included in >>> the series only as an RFC for illustration purposes since changing >>> that without first applying all the other patches in this series, will >>> break module autoloading for the drivers of devices registered using >>> OF but that lacks an of_match_table. I'll repost patch #18 once all >>> the patches in this series have landed. > >>> IOW, it's labeled as such mostly for safety, since it has quite a few >>> distributed dependencies. > > Are there really only 17 drivers that are missing an explict of_table? > That seems like a low number. > In fact the 17 patches are the combination of the SPI drivers that: a) Have a .id_table but not a MODULE_DEVICE_TABLE(spi,...) b) Have a .of_match_table but no a MODULE_DEVICE_TABLE(of,...) c) Don't have a .of_match_table but have a DT binding document Maybe there are more SPI drivers out there that only have a .id_table and don't have a .of_match_table nor a DT binding doc. But in that case there isn't too much I can do since I've no information that these are drivers are actually used in systems booted with OF. Best regards, -- Javier Martinez Canillas Open Source Group Samsung Research America