| Message ID | 20180410131206.25760-2-brgl@bgdev.pl |
|---|---|
| State | Superseded |
| Headers | show |
| Series | eeprom: at24: last bits of the big refactoring | expand |
On 2018-04-10 15:12, Bartosz Golaszewski wrote: > We switched to using probe_new(), so this is no longer used > by i2c core. It seems to be used in i2c_device_match() ??? This could easily be me not understanding something... Cheers, Peter > Signed-off-by: Bartosz Golaszewski <brgl@bgdev.pl> > --- > drivers/misc/eeprom/at24.c | 1 - > 1 file changed, 1 deletion(-) > > diff --git a/drivers/misc/eeprom/at24.c b/drivers/misc/eeprom/at24.c > index 0c125f207aea..2310f26ac4f3 100644 > --- a/drivers/misc/eeprom/at24.c > +++ b/drivers/misc/eeprom/at24.c > @@ -737,7 +737,6 @@ static struct i2c_driver at24_driver = { > }, > .probe_new = at24_probe, > .remove = at24_remove, > - .id_table = at24_ids, > }; > > static int __init at24_init(void) >
2018-04-11 11:56 GMT+02:00 Peter Rosin <peda@axentia.se>: > On 2018-04-10 15:12, Bartosz Golaszewski wrote: >> We switched to using probe_new(), so this is no longer used >> by i2c core. > > It seems to be used in i2c_device_match() ??? > > This could easily be me not understanding something... > Yes, but i2c core no longer uses the id_table field in struct i2c_driver. We call i2c_device_match() ourselves instead of letting i2c core do it and pass the driver data to probe(). Hope that helps, Bartosz
On 2018-04-11 12:09, Bartosz Golaszewski wrote: > 2018-04-11 11:56 GMT+02:00 Peter Rosin <peda@axentia.se>: >> On 2018-04-10 15:12, Bartosz Golaszewski wrote: >>> We switched to using probe_new(), so this is no longer used >>> by i2c core. >> >> It seems to be used in i2c_device_match() ??? >> >> This could easily be me not understanding something... >> > > Yes, but i2c core no longer uses the id_table field in struct > i2c_driver. We call i2c_device_match() ourselves instead of letting > i2c core do it and pass the driver data to probe(). > > Hope that helps, > Bartosz > But, i2c_device_match is a static function in the core. I think you are confusing it with i2c_match_id, which is in fact called from the static i2c_device_match (with is a bus operation). So, no, it didn't really help... Cheers, Peter
2018-04-11 12:12 GMT+02:00 Peter Rosin <peda@axentia.se>: > On 2018-04-11 12:09, Bartosz Golaszewski wrote: >> 2018-04-11 11:56 GMT+02:00 Peter Rosin <peda@axentia.se>: >>> On 2018-04-10 15:12, Bartosz Golaszewski wrote: >>>> We switched to using probe_new(), so this is no longer used >>>> by i2c core. >>> >>> It seems to be used in i2c_device_match() ??? >>> >>> This could easily be me not understanding something... >>> >> >> Yes, but i2c core no longer uses the id_table field in struct >> i2c_driver. We call i2c_device_match() ourselves instead of letting >> i2c core do it and pass the driver data to probe(). >> >> Hope that helps, >> Bartosz >> > > But, i2c_device_match is a static function in the core. I think you > are confusing it with i2c_match_id, which is in fact called from > the static i2c_device_match (with is a bus operation). > Right. So probe_new() in i2c no longer has the id parameter and the users are supposed to call i2c_match_id() themselves but i2c_device_match() still expects the id_table to be present in struct i2c_driver. I should have tested it with some board that uses platform data. Consider this patch dropped. Thanks for spotting that, Bartosz
diff --git a/drivers/misc/eeprom/at24.c b/drivers/misc/eeprom/at24.c index 0c125f207aea..2310f26ac4f3 100644 --- a/drivers/misc/eeprom/at24.c +++ b/drivers/misc/eeprom/at24.c @@ -737,7 +737,6 @@ static struct i2c_driver at24_driver = { }, .probe_new = at24_probe, .remove = at24_remove, - .id_table = at24_ids, }; static int __init at24_init(void)
We switched to using probe_new(), so this is no longer used by i2c core. Signed-off-by: Bartosz Golaszewski <brgl@bgdev.pl> --- drivers/misc/eeprom/at24.c | 1 - 1 file changed, 1 deletion(-)