Re: [PATCH] drm/tegra: add MODULE_DEVICE_TABLEs

[Thierry Reding <thierry.reding@gmail.com>]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1768 bytes --]

On Wed, Jun 18, 2014 at 04:21:18PM -0600, Stephen Warren wrote:
> On 06/18/2014 03:51 PM, Thierry Reding wrote:
> > On Wed, Jun 18, 2014 at 03:19:15PM -0600, Stephen Warren wrote:
> >> From: Stephen Warren <swarren@nvidia.com>
> >>
> >> When tegra-drm.ko is built as a module, these MODULE_DEVICE_TABLEs allow
> >> the module to be auto-loaded since the module will match the devices
> >> instantiated from device tree.
> > 
> > I vaguely remember doing something like this a while back and getting a
> > bunch of link-time errors. But I assume that you've tested this, so I
> > must be remembering wrongly.
> 
> Were the problems due to:
> 
> a) Simply building the tegradrm driver as modules.
> 
> I vaguely recall some runtime issues with tegradrm as a module, but I'm
> not sure about build issues. I don't think this patch could make this
> any worse.
> 
> b) Building as modules works, but adding MODULE_DEVICE_TABLE broke that.

I think it was this variant. Although adding MODULE_DEVICE_TABLE also
broke building the driver as builtin module. I think the issue was that
the linker was complaining about some symbol being defined multiple
times. But admittedly this was a long time ago, so I'm not sure that my
memory is entirely accurate.

> This seems unlikely since *many* module in the kernel have a
> MODULE_DEVICE_TABLE...
> 
> Certainly, with this patch applied, building tegradrm as a module in
> next-20140611 works out just fine, and the code runs fine too. Building
> tegra_defconfig (which has tegradrm builtin) on Linus' master with this
> patch applied also works out fine.

Okay, sounds good then. I'll do some build testing to see if I can
reproduce the errors, otherwise this looks good to me.

Thierry

[-- Attachment #2: Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 836 bytes --]