| Message ID | 20191210100753.11090-1-brgl@bgdev.pl (mailing list archive) |
|---|---|
| State | Mainlined |
| Commit | ce535a2efb48d8d4c4e4b97e2764d7cee73d9b55 |
| Headers | show |
| Series | input: max77650-onkey: add of_match table | expand |
wt., 10 gru 2019 o 11:08 Bartosz Golaszewski <brgl@bgdev.pl> napisał(a): > > From: Bartosz Golaszewski <bgolaszewski@baylibre.com> > > We need the of_match table if we want to use the compatible string in > the pmic's child node and get the onkey driver loaded automatically. > > Signed-off-by: Bartosz Golaszewski <bgolaszewski@baylibre.com> Gentle ping. Bart
pt., 3 sty 2020 o 14:12 Bartosz Golaszewski <brgl@bgdev.pl> napisał(a): > > wt., 10 gru 2019 o 11:08 Bartosz Golaszewski <brgl@bgdev.pl> napisał(a): > > > > From: Bartosz Golaszewski <bgolaszewski@baylibre.com> > > > > We need the of_match table if we want to use the compatible string in > > the pmic's child node and get the onkey driver loaded automatically. > > > > Signed-off-by: Bartosz Golaszewski <bgolaszewski@baylibre.com> > > Gentle ping. > > Bart Another week, another ping. Cheers, Bart
On Tue, Dec 10, 2019 at 11:07:53AM +0100, Bartosz Golaszewski wrote: > From: Bartosz Golaszewski <bgolaszewski@baylibre.com> > > We need the of_match table if we want to use the compatible string in > the pmic's child node and get the onkey driver loaded automatically. Do we really need of_match table or adding MODULE_ALIAS("platform:max77650-onkey"); will work as well? In general, do we ever instantiate onkey portion from device tree? Or is it always an MFD cell that is instantiated unconditionally? > > Signed-off-by: Bartosz Golaszewski <bgolaszewski@baylibre.com> > --- > drivers/input/misc/max77650-onkey.c | 7 +++++++ > 1 file changed, 7 insertions(+) > > diff --git a/drivers/input/misc/max77650-onkey.c b/drivers/input/misc/max77650-onkey.c > index 4d875f2ac13d..ee55f22dbca5 100644 > --- a/drivers/input/misc/max77650-onkey.c > +++ b/drivers/input/misc/max77650-onkey.c > @@ -108,9 +108,16 @@ static int max77650_onkey_probe(struct platform_device *pdev) > return input_register_device(onkey->input); > } > > +static const struct of_device_id max77650_onkey_of_match[] = { > + { .compatible = "maxim,max77650-onkey" }, > + { } > +}; > +MODULE_DEVICE_TABLE(of, max77650_onkey_of_match); > + > static struct platform_driver max77650_onkey_driver = { > .driver = { > .name = "max77650-onkey", > + .of_match_table = max77650_onkey_of_match, > }, > .probe = max77650_onkey_probe, > }; > -- > 2.23.0 > Thanks.
pt., 10 sty 2020 o 19:28 Dmitry Torokhov <dmitry.torokhov@gmail.com> napisał(a): > > On Tue, Dec 10, 2019 at 11:07:53AM +0100, Bartosz Golaszewski wrote: > > From: Bartosz Golaszewski <bgolaszewski@baylibre.com> > > > > We need the of_match table if we want to use the compatible string in > > the pmic's child node and get the onkey driver loaded automatically. > > Do we really need of_match table or adding > Not really. Technically not anyway but we merged bindings that define it (at the time I didn't know any better) and seems we're stuck with it. Please see the discussion below a similar patch for regulator subsystem[1]. > MODULE_ALIAS("platform:max77650-onkey"); > This is already in there, but if someone defines the compatible in the device tree as per bindings, the module won't be loaded despite the MODULE_ALIAS() definition. > will work as well? > > In general, do we ever instantiate onkey portion from device tree? Or > is it always an MFD cell that is instantiated unconditionally? > Bart [1] https://lkml.org/lkml/2019/12/10/271
On Sat, Jan 11, 2020 at 11:22:55AM +0100, Bartosz Golaszewski wrote: > pt., 10 sty 2020 o 19:28 Dmitry Torokhov <dmitry.torokhov@gmail.com> napisał(a): > > > > On Tue, Dec 10, 2019 at 11:07:53AM +0100, Bartosz Golaszewski wrote: > > > From: Bartosz Golaszewski <bgolaszewski@baylibre.com> > > > > > > We need the of_match table if we want to use the compatible string in > > > the pmic's child node and get the onkey driver loaded automatically. > > > > Do we really need of_match table or adding > > > > Not really. Technically not anyway but we merged bindings that define > it (at the time I didn't know any better) and seems we're stuck with > it. Please see the discussion below a similar patch for regulator > subsystem[1]. > > > MODULE_ALIAS("platform:max77650-onkey"); > > > > This is already in there, but if someone defines the compatible in the > device tree as per bindings, the module won't be loaded despite the > MODULE_ALIAS() definition. I see. Applied, thank you.
diff --git a/drivers/input/misc/max77650-onkey.c b/drivers/input/misc/max77650-onkey.c index 4d875f2ac13d..ee55f22dbca5 100644 --- a/drivers/input/misc/max77650-onkey.c +++ b/drivers/input/misc/max77650-onkey.c @@ -108,9 +108,16 @@ static int max77650_onkey_probe(struct platform_device *pdev) return input_register_device(onkey->input); } +static const struct of_device_id max77650_onkey_of_match[] = { + { .compatible = "maxim,max77650-onkey" }, + { } +}; +MODULE_DEVICE_TABLE(of, max77650_onkey_of_match); + static struct platform_driver max77650_onkey_driver = { .driver = { .name = "max77650-onkey", + .of_match_table = max77650_onkey_of_match, }, .probe = max77650_onkey_probe, };