Messages in this thread | | | From | Arnd Bergmann <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH] rtc: mt6397: Add platform device ID table | Date | Tue, 16 Feb 2016 12:37:57 +0100 |
| |
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@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.
Arnd
| |