On Sat, Apr 18, 2020 at 12:24 AM Paul Cercueil <paul@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:Le sam. 18 avril 2020 à 0:10, Andy Shevchenko
<andy.shevchenko@xxxxxxxxx> a écrit :
> On Fri, Apr 17, 2020 at 11:21 PM Artur Rojek <contact@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> wrote:
...
>> +#include <linux/of.h>
>
> Do you really need this? (See below as well)
>> +static const struct of_device_id adc_joystick_of_match[] = {
>> + { .compatible = "adc-joystick", },
>> + { },
>> +};
>> +MODULE_DEVICE_TABLE(of, adc_joystick_of_match);
>> +
>> +static struct platform_driver adc_joystick_driver = {
>> + .driver = {
>> + .name = "adc-joystick",
>
>> + .of_match_table =
>> of_match_ptr(adc_joystick_of_match),
>
> Drop this a bit harmful of_match_ptr() macro. It should go with ugly
> #ifdeffery. Here you simple introduced a compiler warning.
I assume you mean #ifdef around the of_device_id + module table macro?
Yes.
> On top of that, you are using device property API, OF use in this case
> is contradictory (at lest to some extend).
I don't see why. The fact that the driver can work when probed from
platform code
Ha-ha, tell me how. I would like to be very surprised.
doesn't mean that it shouldn't have a table to probe
from devicetree.
I didn't get what you are talking about here. The idea of _unified_
device property API is to get rid of OF-centric code in favour of more
generic approach. Mixing those two can be done only in specific cases
(here is not the one).
--
With Best Regards,
Andy Shevchenko