Russell King - ARM Linux <linux@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> writes:
> On Mon, Mar 20, 2017 at 04:36:14PM -0700, Eric Anholt wrote:
>> +static struct amba_driver pl111_amba_driver = {
>> + .drv = {
>> + .name = "clcd-pl11x",
>
> either:
>
> .name = "clcd-pl111",
>
> or:
>
> .name = "drm-clcd-pl111",
>
> otherwise the driver names will clash in sysfs - driver names must be
> unique.
>
>> + },
>> + .probe = pl111_amba_probe,
>> + .remove = pl111_amba_remove,
>> + .id_table = pl111_id_table,
>> +};
>> +#endif /* CONFIG_ARM_AMBA */
>> +
>> +module_amba_driver(pl111_amba_driver);
>> +
>> +MODULE_DESCRIPTION(DRIVER_DESC);
>> +MODULE_AUTHOR("ARM Ltd.");
>> +MODULE_LICENSE("GPL");
>> +MODULE_ALIAS("platform:pl111_drm");
>
> Does the platform alias make sense for an OF-only driver?
Not sure, this is left over from the original submission.
If I renamed to drm-clcd-pl111 and dropped the alias, would that get
your ack?
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
_______________________________________________ dri-devel mailing list dri-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/dri-devel
