On 01/05/2013 05:02 AM, Laxman Dewangan wrote:
> From: Pritesh Raithatha <[email protected]>
>
> 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 <[email protected]>
I didn't check the content of all the tables, but the structure looks good!
_______________________________________________
devicetree-discuss mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.ozlabs.org/listinfo/devicetree-discuss
