Re: [PATCH RFC] modpost: Support I2C Aliases from OF tables

Javier Martinez Canillas
2019-08-05T22:25:44Z

Hello Wolfram,

On 7/31/19 9:44 PM, Wolfram Sang wrote:
> Hi Javier,
>
> thank you for providing the extra information.
>
> (And Kieran, thanks for the patch!)
>
>> The other option is to remove i2c_of_match_device() and don't make OF match
>> to fallback to i2c_of_match_device_sysfs(). This is what happens in the ACPI
>> case, since i2c_device_match() just calls acpi_driver_match_device() directly
>> and doesn't have a wrapper function that fallbacks to sysfs matching.
>>
>> In this case an I2C device ID table would be required if the devices have to
>> be instantiated through sysfs. That way the I2C table would be used both for
>> auto-loading and also to match the device when it doesn't have an of_node.
>
> That would probably mean that only a minority of drivers will not add an I2C
> device ID table because it is easy to add an you get the sysfs feature?
>

I believe so yes.

> Then we are back again with the situation that most drivers will have
> multiple tables. With the minor change that the I2C device id table is
> not required anymore by the core, but it will be just very useful to
> have? Or?
>

Yes, it won't be needed anymore if you are only instantiating all your devices
from your firmware interface (e.g: OF, ACPI).

>> If the former is the correct way to solve this then the patch looks good to me.
>>
>> Reviewed-by: Javier Martinez Canillas <javierm@redhat.com>
>
> For this actual patch from Kieran, I'd like to hear an opinion from the
> people maintaining modpost. The aproach looks okay to me, yet I can't
> tell how "easy" we are with adding new types like 'i2c_of'.
>

As Masahiro-san mentioned, this approach will still require to add a new macro
MODULE_DEVICE_TABLE(i2c_of, bar_of_match) so the OF device table is used twice.

One to expose the "of:N*T*Cfoo,bar" and another one to expose it as "i2c:bar".

I expect that many developers would miss adding this macro for new drivers that
are DT-only and so sysfs instantiation would not work there. So whatever is the
approach taken we should clearly document all this so drivers authors are aware.

> Thanks everyone,
>
> Wolfram
>

Best regards,
--
Javier Martinez Canillas
Software Engineer - Desktop Hardware Enablement
Red Hat