Re: [PATCH] rtc: mt6397: Add platform device ID table

[Eddie Huang <eddie.huang@mediatek.com>]

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 <tianping.fang@mediatek.com>");
> > >>   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 <eddie.huang@mediatek.com>

Eddie