[patch 2.6.21-rc6-git] at91_cf, minor fix

[patch 2.6.21-rc6-git] at91_cf, minor fix

[David Brownell]

This is a minor correctness fix:  since the at91_cf driver probe() routine
is in the init section, it should use platform_driver_probe() instead of
leaving that pointer around in the driver struct after init section removal.

Signed-off-by: David Brownell <dbrownell@users.sourceforge.net>
---
This is a refresh of a patch sent to the linux-pcmcia list on 15-February;
it seems that despite the MAINTAINERS file, that's not the place to send
patches.  (So what good is that list, and why is it in MAINTAINERS?)


Index: at91/drivers/pcmcia/at91_cf.c
===================================================================
--- at91.orig/drivers/pcmcia/at91_cf.c	2007-02-15 18:20:53.000000000 -0800
+++ at91/drivers/pcmcia/at91_cf.c	2007-02-15 18:31:27.000000000 -0800
@@ -360,7 +360,6 @@ static struct platform_driver at91_cf_dr
 		.name		= (char *) driver_name,
 		.owner		= THIS_MODULE,
 	},
-	.probe		= at91_cf_probe,
 	.remove		= __exit_p(at91_cf_remove),
 	.suspend	= at91_cf_suspend,
 	.resume		= at91_cf_resume,
@@ -370,7 +369,7 @@ static struct platform_driver at91_cf_dr
 
 static int __init at91_cf_init(void)
 {
-	return platform_driver_register(&at91_cf_driver);
+	return platform_driver_probe(&at91_cf_driver, at91_cf_probe);
 }
 module_init(at91_cf_init);
 

Re: [patch 2.6.21-rc6-git] at91_cf, minor fix

[Andrew Morton]

On Fri, 6 Apr 2007 14:48:47 -0700 David Brownell <david-b@pacbell.net> wrote:

> This is a refresh of a patch sent to the linux-pcmcia list on 15-February;
> it seems that despite the MAINTAINERS file, that's not the place to send
> patches.  (So what good is that list, and why is it in MAINTAINERS?)

Dominik has been pretty quiet lately - Uni studies, iirc.

Copying me (or lkml) on stuff is always a good way to avoid lossage.