lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2017]   [Feb]   [1]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
SubjectRe: [PATCH v9 6/8] drivers:input:ads7846(+tsc2046): fix spi module table
From
Date
Hi Dmitry, Javier,

> Am 29.01.2017 um 19:25 schrieb H. Nikolaus Schaller <hns@goldelico.com>:
>
> Hi Dmitry,
>
>> Am 29.01.2017 um 19:01 schrieb Dmitry Torokhov <dmitry.torokhov@gmail.com>:
>>
>> On Sun, Jan 29, 2017 at 09:39:39AM +0100, H. Nikolaus Schaller wrote:
>>> Hi Dmitry,
>>>
>>>> Am 28.01.2017 um 20:35 schrieb Dmitry Torokhov <dmitry.torokhov@gmail.com>:
>>>>
>>>> On Wed, Dec 28, 2016 at 03:53:21PM +0100, H. Nikolaus Schaller wrote:
>>>>> Fix module table so that the driver is loaded if compiled
>>>>> as module and requested by DT.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> I believe I already replied to a similar patch: we alreadyhave necessary
>>>> aliases in this driver, we need to fix module loading to use it.
>>>
>>> Yes, you did comment on [PATCH v6 7/8] (19 Nov 2016):
>>>
>>>>> We really need to fix it between spi/i23c core and module utils instead
>>>>> of keeping adding duplicate IDs all over drivers. We already have OF
>>>>> module device table containing the same data, we should be able to use
>>>>> it.
>>>
>>> And Javier Martinez Canillas replied (23 Nov 2016):
>>>
>>>> Agreed, unfortunately until the I2C and SPI core are changed to properly
>>>> report OF modaliases, we will have to keep adding these duplicated IDs.
>>>>
>>>> And changing the I2C and SPI core isn't trivial since it could break a
>>>> lot of drivers that rely on a platform modalias being reported (i.e: no
>>>> OF device IDs present in the drivers even when are registered via DT).
>>>
>>> Therefore I didn't see a need to change it.
>>
>> I agree that changing I2C and SPI core is not trivial, however this is
>> no reason for piling up workarounds in all drivers. Are you seriously
>> advocating going though *every* driver and copying OF data into I2C/SPI
>> instead of doing the right thing and fixing the root of the issue?
>
> If you prefer to have this done (and I agree it would be a tiny improvement),
> please do it for us all. But please after merging this workaround.

Have we been lucky to find someone who is able and willing to work on this?

If not, I'd recommend to stay with the current level of optimality.

BR and thanks,
Nikolaus

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2017-02-01 21:25    [W:0.076 / U:2.720 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site