From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Arnd Bergmann Subject: Re: [PATCH] rtc: mt6397: Add platform device ID table Date: Tue, 16 Feb 2016 12:37:57 +0100 Message-ID: <2416670.q30ahHlzPm@wuerfel> References: <1455016095-13724-1-git-send-email-javier@osg.samsung.com> <1455501497.7263.4.camel@mtksdaap41> <56C1E5C8.6040007@osg.samsung.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: In-Reply-To: <56C1E5C8.6040007-JPH+aEBZ4P+UEJcrhfAQsw@public.gmane.org> List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: "Linux-mediatek" Errors-To: linux-mediatek-bounces+glpam-linux-mediatek=m.gmane.org-IAPFreCvJWM7uuMidbF8XUB+6BGkLq7r@public.gmane.org To: linux-arm-kernel-IAPFreCvJWM7uuMidbF8XUB+6BGkLq7r@public.gmane.org Cc: Alessandro Zummo , rtc-linux-/JYPxA39Uh5TLH3MbocFFw@public.gmane.org, linux-kernel-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org, Javier Martinez Canillas , linux-mediatek-IAPFreCvJWM7uuMidbF8XUB+6BGkLq7r@public.gmane.org, Alexandre Belloni , Eddie Huang List-Id: linux-mediatek@lists.infradead.org On Monday 15 February 2016 11:50:48 Javier Martinez Canillas wrote: > > On 02/14/2016 10:58 PM, Eddie Huang wrote: > > [snip] > > >> @@ -412,6 +418,7 @@ static struct platform_driver mtk_rtc_driver = { > >> }, > >> .probe = mtk_rtc_probe, > >> .remove = mtk_rtc_remove, > >> + .id_table = mt6397_rtc_id, > >> }; > >> > >> module_platform_driver(mtk_rtc_driver); > >> @@ -419,4 +426,3 @@ module_platform_driver(mtk_rtc_driver); > >> MODULE_LICENSE("GPL v2"); > >> MODULE_AUTHOR("Tianping Fang "); > >> MODULE_DESCRIPTION("RTC Driver for MediaTek MT6397 PMIC"); > >> -MODULE_ALIAS("platform:mt6397-rtc"); > > > > This patch looks good to me, but I am wondering, since we tend to use > > device tree method to match driver, do we still need support platform > > device ID ? > > > > I'm not familiar with neither this IP block nor the SoC so it is up to > you. I just noticed this issue when reviewing a regulator driver for a > similar PMIC posted by someone from mediatek. > > I thought platform device was needed since the driver has a MODULE_ALIAS() > but please let me know what you prefer and I can re-spin the patch and > just remove the MODULE_ALIAS() if that makes more sense for this platform. > > I agree. We can alway add a MODULE_DEVICE_TABLE() if we get multiple users of this driver on architectures that don't use devicetree yet. Arnd