Hello Kieran, On 11/07/2016 07:05 PM, Kieran Bingham wrote: > Thanks for your reviews again Javier, >
Thanks to you for keep pushing this series. > On 07/11/16 19:20, Javier Martinez Canillas wrote: >> Hello Kieran, >> >> On 11/07/2016 09:47 AM, Kieran Bingham wrote: >>> From: Lee Jones <[email protected]> >>> >>> Also remove unused second probe() parameter 'i2c_device_id'. >>> >>> Acked-by: Grant Likely <[email protected]> >>> Signed-off-by: Lee Jones <[email protected]> >>> Signed-off-by: Kieran Bingham <[email protected]> >>> >>> --- >>> Changes since v4 >>> - Rename .probe2 to probe_new >>> >>> drivers/mfd/as3722.c | 12 ++---------- >>> 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 10 deletions(-) >>> >>> diff --git a/drivers/mfd/as3722.c b/drivers/mfd/as3722.c >>> index f87342c211bc..7d8c5e4136e2 100644 >>> --- a/drivers/mfd/as3722.c >>> +++ b/drivers/mfd/as3722.c >>> @@ -354,8 +354,7 @@ static int as3722_i2c_of_probe(struct i2c_client *i2c, >>> return 0; >>> } >>> >>> -static int as3722_i2c_probe(struct i2c_client *i2c, >>> - const struct i2c_device_id *id) >>> +static int as3722_i2c_probe(struct i2c_client *i2c) >>> { >> >> This is OK... >> >>> struct as3722 *as3722; >>> unsigned long irq_flags; >>> @@ -441,12 +440,6 @@ static const struct of_device_id as3722_of_match[] = { >>> }; >>> MODULE_DEVICE_TABLE(of, as3722_of_match); >>> >>> -static const struct i2c_device_id as3722_i2c_id[] = { >>> - { "as3722", 0 }, >>> - {}, >>> -}; >>> -MODULE_DEVICE_TABLE(i2c, as3722_i2c_id); >>> - >> >> ... but I don't think this is correct. Otherwise you will break module >> autoload for this driver since modpost needs the I2C device ID table >> info to fill the i2c modalias in the drivers' module. >> >> Remember that i2c_device_uevent() always reports modalias of the form >> MODALIAS=i2c:<foo> even when your series allows to match without a I2C >> device ID table. >> > > Ok - Thanks for the reminder. I'll try to bear this in mind when we > start updating drivers. > > For now we can consider this patch dropped from the series I think. > Yes, or you could just do the change that uses probe_new for now but leave the MODULE_DEVICE_TABLE(). >> Best regards, >> > Best regards, -- Javier Martinez Canillas Open Source Group Samsung Research America
