That list was just empty, so it can be removed if .probe_new
instead of .probe is used
Suggested-by: Lee Jones <[email protected]>
Signed-off-by: Andreas Kemnade <[email protected]>
---
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;
}
-static const struct i2c_device_id rn5t618_i2c_id[] = {
- { }
-};
-MODULE_DEVICE_TABLE(i2c, rn5t618_i2c_id);
-
static SIMPLE_DEV_PM_OPS(rn5t618_i2c_dev_pm_ops,
rn5t618_i2c_suspend,
rn5t618_i2c_resume);
@@ -266,9 +260,8 @@ static struct i2c_driver rn5t618_i2c_driver = {
.of_match_table = of_match_ptr(rn5t618_of_match),
.pm = &rn5t618_i2c_dev_pm_ops,
},
- .probe = rn5t618_i2c_probe,
+ .probe_new = rn5t618_i2c_probe,
.remove = rn5t618_i2c_remove,
- .id_table = rn5t618_i2c_id,
};
module_i2c_driver(rn5t618_i2c_driver);
--
2.20.1
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 <[email protected]> wrote:
> That list was just empty, so it can be removed if .probe_new
> instead of .probe is used
>
> Suggested-by: Lee Jones <[email protected]>
> Signed-off-by: Andreas Kemnade <[email protected]>
> ---
> 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
On Tue, 28 Jan 2020, Andreas Kemnade wrote:
> 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 <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > That list was just empty, so it can be removed if .probe_new
> > instead of .probe is used
> >
> > Suggested-by: Lee Jones <[email protected]>
> > Signed-off-by: Andreas Kemnade <[email protected]>
> > ---
> > 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.
You may as well wait until -rc1 is out and rebase on top of that.
--
Lee Jones [李琼斯]
Linaro Services Technical Lead
Linaro.org │ Open source software for ARM SoCs
Follow Linaro: Facebook | Twitter | Blog
On Thu, 30 Jan 2020 15:24:28 +0000
Lee Jones <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Tue, 28 Jan 2020, Andreas Kemnade wrote:
>
> > 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 <[email protected]> wrote:
> >
> > > That list was just empty, so it can be removed if .probe_new
> > > instead of .probe is used
> > >
> > > Suggested-by: Lee Jones <[email protected]>
> > > Signed-off-by: Andreas Kemnade <[email protected]>
> > > ---
> > > 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.
>
> You may as well wait until -rc1 is out and rebase on top of that.
>
hmm, then the RTC/IRQ series does not apply on top of it:
https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/[email protected]/
and needs to be rebased. I have no idea if that is more favorable for you.
The RTC/IRQ series happily applies on top of v5.6-rc1, but not on top of
this patch.
Yes, I should have documented that apply-conflict, but was
not aware of it while submitting this patch.
Regards,
Andreas