Messages in this thread | | | Date | Tue, 28 Jan 2020 19:45:55 +0100 | From | Andreas Kemnade <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH] mfd: rn5t618: cleanup i2c_device_id |
| |
Hi,
just re-checking the patch again. Seems that I have added it on top of my RTC series. It breaks because of...
On Wed, 11 Dec 2019 22:57:31 +0100 Andreas Kemnade <andreas@kemnade.info> wrote:
> That list was just empty, so it can be removed if .probe_new > instead of .probe is used > > Suggested-by: Lee Jones <lee.jones@linaro.org> > Signed-off-by: Andreas Kemnade <andreas@kemnade.info> > --- > drivers/mfd/rn5t618.c | 11 ++--------- > 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 9 deletions(-) > > diff --git a/drivers/mfd/rn5t618.c b/drivers/mfd/rn5t618.c > index 18d56a732b20..70d52b46ee8a 100644 > --- a/drivers/mfd/rn5t618.c > +++ b/drivers/mfd/rn5t618.c > @@ -150,8 +150,7 @@ static const struct of_device_id rn5t618_of_match[] = { > }; > MODULE_DEVICE_TABLE(of, rn5t618_of_match); > > -static int rn5t618_i2c_probe(struct i2c_client *i2c, > - const struct i2c_device_id *id) > +static int rn5t618_i2c_probe(struct i2c_client *i2c) > { > const struct of_device_id *of_id; > struct rn5t618 *priv; > @@ -251,11 +250,6 @@ static int __maybe_unused rn5t618_i2c_resume(struct device *dev) > return 0; > } > I added the pm stuff above ...
> -static const struct i2c_device_id rn5t618_i2c_id[] = { > - { } > -}; > -MODULE_DEVICE_TABLE(i2c, rn5t618_i2c_id); > -
and below it in my RTC series.
> static SIMPLE_DEV_PM_OPS(rn5t618_i2c_dev_pm_ops, > rn5t618_i2c_suspend, > rn5t618_i2c_resume);
Do you want to have it rebased so it can be applied first? Sorry for the confusion here.
Regards, Andreas [unhandled content-type:application/pgp-signature] | |