Re: [PATCHv5 0/8] 2c: Relax mandatory I2C ID table passing

[Wolfram Sang]

On Thu, Jun 09, 2016 at 03:45:52PM -0400, Javier Martinez Canillas wrote:
> Hello Wolfram,
> 
> On 06/09/2016 03:15 PM, Wolfram Sang wrote:
> > Hi Kieran,
> > 
> >> * Device Tree
> >>   I tested that the device would still register by adding a node in the device
> >>   tree for the board, and testing with a built-in module. 
> >>
> >>  - This worked fine.
> >>
> >> * Module Autoloading
> >>   With the device tree node in the board dts file, it wouldn't automatically
> >>   load from the external module. This was due to the rtc-ds1307 module not
> >>   exporting an of_match table, and not yet having Javier's "report OF style
> >>   modalias when probing using DT" [0]  patch applied

Let's call this a)

> > 
> > What I didn't get here: did your version of the RTC driver use probe()
> > or probe_new() without i2c_device_id table or did you try both? I assume
> > module autoloading only fails with probe_new(), otherwise we would be in
> > serious trouble. But I'd wonder then that userspace instantiation works.
> >
> 
> I can't answer for Kieran but you trimmed this last sentence from him:
> 
> >  - With the module updated, and Javiers patch applied, the module autoloads

Let's call this b)

> >
> 
> So my understanding is that by updated he meant a patched rtc-ds1307 driver
> using a .probe_new, whose i2c_device_id table was removed and of_device_id
> table added (that's not present in the mainline driver).
> 
> And that's why he needed my RFC patch to report a MODALIAS=of:N*T*Cfoo,bar
> and match what's exported to the module using the of_device_id table.
> 
> Because drivers that only use .probe and have an i2c_device_id table will
> continue to match and report MODALIAS=i2c:foo as before after this series.

Yes, this is my understanding and expectation, too. However, he wrote
that module loading fails on a) where he never wrote anything about an
updated module before. That comes only later with b). So what I would
have expected:

1) update the module (which is "b)" above)
2) autoloading fails (which is "a)" above)
3) applying your patch
4) everything works

which implies

0) nothing done, everything works

But I don't see this in the text, so I better ask. This also raises the
question open how userspace instantiation was tested. With or without
updating (ideally both).

Thanks,

   Wolfram

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: PGP signature