Re: [PATCH 2/2] pinctrl: tegra114: add pinctrl driver for NVIDIA'sTegra114 SoC

[Stephen Warren]

On 01/05/2013 05:02 AM, Laxman Dewangan wrote:
> From: Pritesh Raithatha <praithatha@xxxxxxxxxx>
> 
> This adds a driver for the Tegra114 pinmux, and required
> parameterization data for Tegra114.
> 
> The driver uses the common Tegra pincontrol driver utility
> functions to implement the majority of the driver.
> 
> This driver is not compatible with the earlier NVIDIA's SoCs,
> hence add new compatibile as "nvidia,tegra114-pinmux".
> 
> Originally written by Pritesh.
> ldewangan: cleanup the patches, remove non-require tables.

> +static struct platform_driver tegra114_pinctrl_driver = {
> +	.driver = {
> +		.name = "tegra114-pinctrl",
> +		.owner = THIS_MODULE,
> +		.of_match_table = tegra114_pinctrl_of_match,
> +	},
> +	.probe = tegra114_pinctrl_probe,
> +	.remove = tegra_pinctrl_remove,
> +};

> +
> +static int __init tegra114_pinctrl_init(void)
> +{
> +	return platform_driver_register(&tegra114_pinctrl_driver);
> +}
> +arch_initcall(tegra114_pinctrl_init);
> +
> +static void __exit tegra114_pinctrl_exit(void)
> +{
> +	platform_driver_unregister(&tegra114_pinctrl_driver);
> +}
> +module_exit(tegra114_pinctrl_exit);

I believe that last chunk should be
module_platform_driver(tegra114_pinctrl_driver), since now that
everything is instantiated purely from DT, I don't believe there's any
probe ordering advantage to be gained from using arch_initcall() rather
than module_init().

Aside from that, the series,
Reviewed-by: Stephen Warren <swarren@xxxxxxxxxx>

I didn't check the content of all the tables, but the structure looks good!
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/