From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mout.kundenserver.de (mout.kundenserver.de. [212.227.126.133]) by gmr-mx.google.com with ESMTPS id e130si1389957wme.2.2016.02.24.08.57.09 for (version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Wed, 24 Feb 2016 08:57:09 -0800 (PST) From: Arnd Bergmann To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org Cc: Eddie Huang , Alessandro Zummo , rtc-linux@googlegroups.com, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Javier Martinez Canillas , linux-mediatek@lists.infradead.org, Alexandre Belloni Subject: [rtc-linux] Re: [PATCH] rtc: mt6397: Add platform device ID table Date: Wed, 24 Feb 2016 17:56:57 +0100 Message-ID: <3216713.qF8RyQVuPO@wuerfel> In-Reply-To: <1455628747.2981.4.camel@mtksdaap41> References: <1455016095-13724-1-git-send-email-javier@osg.samsung.com> <2416670.q30ahHlzPm@wuerfel> <1455628747.2981.4.camel@mtksdaap41> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Reply-To: rtc-linux@googlegroups.com List-ID: List-Post: , List-Help: , List-Archive: , List-Unsubscribe: , On Tuesday 16 February 2016 21:19:07 Eddie Huang wrote: > On Tue, 2016-02-16 at 12:37 +0100, Arnd Bergmann wrote: > > 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. > > > > Sure. Thanks the patch to add expandability to this driver. > > Acked-by: Eddie Huang I think we misunderstood one another. I think we can drop both the MODULE_DEVICE_TABLE and the MODULE_ALIAS: there is no need for another driver ID when it is always probed using DT. Arnd -- -- You received this message because you are subscribed to "rtc-linux". Membership options at http://groups.google.com/group/rtc-linux . Please read http://groups.google.com/group/rtc-linux/web/checklist before submitting a driver. --- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "rtc-linux" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to rtc-linux+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.