From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1755398AbaE3JED (ORCPT ); Fri, 30 May 2014 05:04:03 -0400 Received: from mga01.intel.com ([192.55.52.88]:14025 "EHLO mga01.intel.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1755203AbaE3JD7 (ORCPT ); Fri, 30 May 2014 05:03:59 -0400 X-ExtLoop1: 1 X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.98,940,1392192000"; d="scan'208";a="539951195" Message-ID: <5388497C.3000106@linux.intel.com> Date: Fri, 30 May 2014 17:03:56 +0800 From: "Zhu, Lejun" User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:24.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/24.5.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Lee Jones CC: broonie@kernel.org, sameo@linux.intel.com, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, jacob.jun.pan@linux.intel.com, bin.yang@intel.com Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 1/3] mfd: intel_soc_pmic: Core driver References: <1401347968-24410-1-git-send-email-lejun.zhu@linux.intel.com> <1401347968-24410-2-git-send-email-lejun.zhu@linux.intel.com> <20140529114052.GI1954@lee--X1> <53880FF5.8070500@linux.intel.com> <20140530080848.GB2619@lee--X1> In-Reply-To: <20140530080848.GB2619@lee--X1> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On 2014/5/30 16:08, Lee Jones wrote: >>>> +static int intel_soc_pmic_find_gpio_irq(struct device *dev) >>>> +{ >>>> + struct gpio_desc *desc; >>>> + int irq; >>>> + >>>> + desc = devm_gpiod_get_index(dev, KBUILD_MODNAME, 0); >>> >>> What does "KBUILD_MODNAME" translate to? >> >> It translates into "intel_soc_pmic". > > Can you just put that instead? Sure. I'll fix it. (...) >>>> +static const struct i2c_device_id intel_soc_pmic_i2c_id[] = { >>>> + {"INT33FD:00", (kernel_ulong_t)&intel_soc_pmic_config_crc}, >>>> + { } >>>> +}; >>>> +MODULE_DEVICE_TABLE(i2c, intel_soc_pmic_i2c_id); >>>> + >>>> +static struct acpi_device_id intel_soc_pmic_acpi_match[] = { >>>> + {"INT33FD", (kernel_ulong_t)&intel_soc_pmic_config_crc}, >>>> + { }, >>>> +}; >>>> +MODULE_DEVICE_TABLE(acpi, intel_soc_pmic_acpi_match); >>> >>> Does ACPI have a match function to extact it's .driver_data attribute? >>> >>> If so, are you using it here? If not, why not? >>> >> >> The ACPI table is used in i2c_device_match(), and the i2c table is used >> in i2c_device_probe(), so the id in the i2c table is actually fed to >> intel_soc_pmic_probe(). But I only found out now that having the i2c >> table alone is enough, because i2c_device_match will fallback to the i2c >> table if there's no ACPI table. So to keep it simple, I'll remove the >> ACPI table completely. > > Actually, can you do it the other way round? Minimise the i2c table > and populate the ACPI one. I'm just about to work on a separate > patch-set which deprecates the use of the i2c table on DT and/or ACPI > only registered devices. Current i2c_device_probe will only feed driver_data from i2c_device_id table to intel_soc_pmic_probe(), because it uses i2c_match_id(). So if I remove "&intel_soc_pmic_config_crc" from the i2c table, I will get NULL from id->driver_data until your new patch fixes it. So for the driver to work for the i2c code both today and in the future, I think it's best to keep the driver_data populated in both tables. What do you think? Best Regards Lejun