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

[Srinivas Neeli]

Hi,

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Bartosz Golaszewski <bgolaszewski@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
> Sent: Friday, April 16, 2021 11:58 PM
> To: Srinivas Neeli <sneeli@xxxxxxxxxx>
> Cc: Andy Shevchenko <andy.shevchenko@xxxxxxxxx>;
> 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 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.

Could you please apply this series to gpio for-next branch if there are no issues .

> 
> > Thanks
> > Srinivas Neeli
> >
> > > Bartosz
> 
> Bartosz

Thanks
Srinivas Neeli