Re: [PATCH] mfd: rn5t618: cleanup i2c_device_id

[Andreas Kemnade]

On Thu, 30 Jan 2020 15:24:28 +0000
Lee Jones <lee.jones@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

> On Tue, 28 Jan 2020, Andreas Kemnade wrote:
> 
> > Hi,
> > 
> > just re-checking the patch again. Seems that I have added it on top of my RTC
> > series. It breaks because of...
> > 
> > On Wed, 11 Dec 2019 22:57:31 +0100
> > Andreas Kemnade <andreas@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >   
> > > That list was just empty, so it can be removed if .probe_new
> > > instead of .probe is used
> > > 
> > > Suggested-by: Lee Jones <lee.jones@xxxxxxxxxx>
> > > Signed-off-by: Andreas Kemnade <andreas@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
> > > ---
> > >  drivers/mfd/rn5t618.c | 11 ++---------
> > >  1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 9 deletions(-)
> > > 
> > > diff --git a/drivers/mfd/rn5t618.c b/drivers/mfd/rn5t618.c
> > > index 18d56a732b20..70d52b46ee8a 100644
> > > --- a/drivers/mfd/rn5t618.c
> > > +++ b/drivers/mfd/rn5t618.c
> > > @@ -150,8 +150,7 @@ static const struct of_device_id rn5t618_of_match[] = {
> > >  };
> > >  MODULE_DEVICE_TABLE(of, rn5t618_of_match);
> > >  
> > > -static int rn5t618_i2c_probe(struct i2c_client *i2c,
> > > -			     const struct i2c_device_id *id)
> > > +static int rn5t618_i2c_probe(struct i2c_client *i2c)
> > >  {
> > >  	const struct of_device_id *of_id;
> > >  	struct rn5t618 *priv;
> > > @@ -251,11 +250,6 @@ static int __maybe_unused rn5t618_i2c_resume(struct device *dev)
> > >  	return 0;
> > >  }
> > >    
> > I added the pm stuff above ...
> > 
> >   
> > > -static const struct i2c_device_id rn5t618_i2c_id[] = {
> > > -	{ }
> > > -};
> > > -MODULE_DEVICE_TABLE(i2c, rn5t618_i2c_id);
> > > -  
> > 
> > and below it in my RTC series.
> >   
> > >  static SIMPLE_DEV_PM_OPS(rn5t618_i2c_dev_pm_ops,
> > >  			rn5t618_i2c_suspend,
> > >  			rn5t618_i2c_resume);  
> > 
> > Do you want to have it rebased so it can be applied first?
> > Sorry for the confusion here.  
> 
> You may as well wait until -rc1 is out and rebase on top of that.
> 
hmm, then the RTC/IRQ series does not apply on top of it:
https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/20191220122416.31881-1-andreas@xxxxxxxxxxxx/

and needs to be rebased. I have no idea if that is more favorable for you.
The RTC/IRQ series happily applies on top of v5.6-rc1, but not on top of
this patch.

Yes, I should have documented that apply-conflict, but was
not aware of it while submitting this patch.

Regards,
Andreas

Attachment: pgpeZZikwPy2Z.pgp
Description: OpenPGP digital signature