Re: [PATCH 1/3] gpio: zynq: use module_platform_driver to simplify the code

[Bartosz Golaszewski]

On Wed, Apr 14, 2021 at 4:45 PM Srinivas Neeli <sneeli@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> HI baratosz and Andy,
>

It's Bartosz. You literally just need to copy & paste the name from my email...

> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Bartosz Golaszewski <bgolaszewski@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
> > Sent: Tuesday, April 13, 2021 4:14 PM
> > To: Andy Shevchenko <andy.shevchenko@xxxxxxxxx>
> > Cc: Srinivas Neeli <sneeli@xxxxxxxxxx>; linus.walleij@xxxxxxxxxx; Michal Simek
> > <michals@xxxxxxxxxx>; Shubhrajyoti Datta <shubhraj@xxxxxxxxxx>; Srinivas
> > Goud <sgoud@xxxxxxxxxx>; linux-gpio@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; linux-arm-
> > kernel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; linux-kernel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; git
> > <git@xxxxxxxxxx>
> > Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/3] gpio: zynq: use module_platform_driver to simplify
> > the code
> >
> > On Sat, Apr 10, 2021 at 12:08 AM Andy Shevchenko
> > <andy.shevchenko@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > On Friday, April 9, 2021, Srinivas Neeli <srinivas.neeli@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > >>
> > >> module_platform_driver() makes the code simpler by eliminating
> > >> boilerplate code.
> > >>
> > >> Signed-off-by: Srinivas Neeli <srinivas.neeli@xxxxxxxxxx>
> > >> ---
> > >>  drivers/gpio/gpio-zynq.c | 17 +----------------
> > >>  1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 16 deletions(-)
> > >>
> > >> diff --git a/drivers/gpio/gpio-zynq.c b/drivers/gpio/gpio-zynq.c
> > >> index 3521c1dc3ac0..bb1ac0c5cf26 100644
> > >> --- a/drivers/gpio/gpio-zynq.c
> > >> +++ b/drivers/gpio/gpio-zynq.c
> > >> @@ -1020,22 +1020,7 @@ static struct platform_driver zynq_gpio_driver
> > = {
> > >>         .remove = zynq_gpio_remove,
> > >>  };
> > >>
> > >> -/**
> > >> - * zynq_gpio_init - Initial driver registration call
> > >> - *
> > >> - * Return: value from platform_driver_register
> > >> - */
> > >> -static int __init zynq_gpio_init(void) -{
> > >> -       return platform_driver_register(&zynq_gpio_driver);
> > >> -}
> > >> -postcore_initcall(zynq_gpio_init);
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > It’s not an equivalent. Have you tested on actual hardware? If no, there is
> > no go for this change.
> > >
> >
> > Yep, this has been like this since the initial introduction of this driver.
> > Unfortunately there's no documented reason so unless we can test it, it has
> > to stay this way.
> >
> I tested driver, functionality wise everything working fine.
> Based on below conversation, I moved driver to module driver.
> https://lore.kernel.org/patchwork/patch/818202/
>

Andy: How about we give it a try then? If anyone yells, we'll just revert it.

> Thanks
> Srinivas Neeli
>
> > Bartosz

Bartosz