Quoting Geert Uytterhoeven (2018-11-09 01:56:01)
> On Wed, Nov 7, 2018 at 7:37 PM Stephen Boyd <sboyd@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > Quoting Rob Herring (2018-11-06 12:44:52)
> > > On Tue, Nov 6, 2018 at 12:36 PM Stephen Boyd <sboyd@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > int (*probe)(struct platform_device *pdev);
> > };
> >
> > struct of_platform_driver_probe_func mtk_probes[] = {
> > mtk_probe1,
> > mtk_probe2,
> > mtk_probe3,
> > };
> >
> > struct platform_driver mtk_driver = {
> > .of_probes = &mtk_probes;
> > .driver = {
> > .name = "mtk-foo";
> > .of_match_table = mtk_match_table,
> > },
> > };
>
> This looks worse to me: people tend to be very good at keeping multiple
> arrays in sync :-(
To be _not_ very good? Agreed, and so specifying the probe function as
another member in struct of_device_id seems to be the way to go.
