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

From: Javier Martinez Canillas
Date: Wed Feb 24 2016 - 12:02:26 EST

Hello Arnd,

On 02/24/2016 01:56 PM, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
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:


@@ -412,6 +418,7 @@ static struct platform_driver mtk_rtc_driver = {
.probe = mtk_rtc_probe,
.remove = mtk_rtc_remove,
+ .id_table = mt6397_rtc_id,

@@ -419,4 +426,3 @@ module_platform_driver(mtk_rtc_driver);
MODULE_AUTHOR("Tianping Fang <tianping.fang@xxxxxxxxxxxx>");
MODULE_DESCRIPTION("RTC Driver for MediaTek MT6397 PMIC");

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@xxxxxxxxxxxx>

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.

That's how I understood but then Eddie said the opposite so I got confused
and was waiting for your clarification. I'll re-spin and remove the alias.


Best regards,
Javier Martinez Canillas
Open Source Group
Samsung Research America