From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: paul.gortmaker@windriver.com (Paul Gortmaker) Date: Tue, 22 Dec 2015 10:48:08 -0500 Subject: [PATCH] soc: mediatek: SCPSYS: use builtin_platform_driver In-Reply-To: References: <1450437573-32079-1-git-send-email-matthias.bgg@gmail.com> Message-ID: <20151222154808.GC12458@windriver.com> To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org List-Id: linux-arm-kernel.lists.infradead.org [Re: [PATCH] soc: mediatek: SCPSYS: use builtin_platform_driver] On 22/12/2015 (Tue 21:36) Daniel Kurtz wrote: > Hi Matthias, > > One thing below is missing from this version of the patch... > > > On Fri, Dec 18, 2015 at 7:19 PM, Matthias Brugger > > wrote: > >> SCPSYS can't be built as module. Use builtin_platform_driver instead. > >> For this probe must not be __init and the data accessed can't be > >> __initconst. Remove this macros. To make the impact as small as possible, > >> fold scp_domain_data into scp_domain via a pointer. > > [snip] > > >> @@ -542,10 +533,11 @@ static const struct of_device_id of_scpsys_match_tbl[] = { > >> }; > >> > >> static struct platform_driver scpsys_drv = { > >> + .probe = scpsys_probe, > >> .driver = { > >> .name = "mtk-scpsys", > > This was in Sascha's version of the patch: > > .suppress_bind_attrs = true, Unless you've got a very specific use case where an unbind makes sense (like a quad port ethernet card, where you unbind one port and then do PCI pass through of it to a kvm guest for example) then yes, you should suppress unbind. So for most drivers aimed at a single device, or where being built in but unbinding just makes no sense for any possible use case, then yes you should set the above. Paul. -- > > Do we still need it now that we use "builtin_platform_driver"? > > >> .owner = THIS_MODULE, > >> .of_match_table = of_match_ptr(of_scpsys_match_tbl), > >> }, > >> }; > >> -builtin_platform_driver_probe(scpsys_drv, scpsys_probe); > >> +builtin_platform_driver(scpsys_drv); > >> -- > >> 2.6.2 > >>