[PATCH] rtc: mt6397: Add platform device ID table
Eddie Huang
eddie.huang at mediatek.com
Tue Feb 16 05:19:07 PST 2016
On Tue, 2016-02-16 at 12:37 +0100, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
> On Monday 15 February 2016 11:50:48 Javier Martinez Canillas wrote:
> >
> > On 02/14/2016 10:58 PM, Eddie Huang wrote:
> >
> > [snip]
> >
> > >> @@ -412,6 +418,7 @@ static struct platform_driver mtk_rtc_driver = {
> > >> },
> > >> .probe = mtk_rtc_probe,
> > >> .remove = mtk_rtc_remove,
> > >> + .id_table = mt6397_rtc_id,
> > >> };
> > >>
> > >> module_platform_driver(mtk_rtc_driver);
> > >> @@ -419,4 +426,3 @@ module_platform_driver(mtk_rtc_driver);
> > >> MODULE_LICENSE("GPL v2");
> > >> MODULE_AUTHOR("Tianping Fang <tianping.fang at mediatek.com>");
> > >> MODULE_DESCRIPTION("RTC Driver for MediaTek MT6397 PMIC");
> > >> -MODULE_ALIAS("platform:mt6397-rtc");
> > >
> > > This patch looks good to me, but I am wondering, since we tend to use
> > > device tree method to match driver, do we still need support platform
> > > device ID ?
> > >
> >
> > I'm not familiar with neither this IP block nor the SoC so it is up to
> > you. I just noticed this issue when reviewing a regulator driver for a
> > similar PMIC posted by someone from mediatek.
> >
> > I thought platform device was needed since the driver has a MODULE_ALIAS()
> > but please let me know what you prefer and I can re-spin the patch and
> > just remove the MODULE_ALIAS() if that makes more sense for this platform.
> >
> >
>
> I agree. We can alway add a MODULE_DEVICE_TABLE() if we get multiple
> users of this driver on architectures that don't use devicetree yet.
>
Sure. Thanks the patch to add expandability to this driver.
Acked-by: Eddie Huang <eddie.huang at mediatek.com>
Eddie
More information about the Linux-mediatek
mailing list