On 12/21/2012 11:50 PM, Terje Bergström wrote:
> On 21.12.2012 16:36, Thierry Reding wrote:
>> On Fri, Dec 21, 2012 at 01:39:21PM +0200, Terje Bergstrom wrote:
>>> +static struct platform_driver tegra_drm_platform_driver = {
>>> + .driver = {
>>> + .name = "tegradrm",
>>
>> This should be "tegra-drm" to match the module name.
>
> We've actually created two problems.
>
> First is that the device name should match driver name which should
> match module name. But host1x doesn't know the module name of tegradrm.
There's no hard requirement for the device/driver name to match the
module name. It's good thing to do, but nothing will blow up if it don't
(modules can use MODULE_ALIAS() to declare which drivers they expose).
But, what's the problem with host1x knowing the driver name; the host1x
driver and tegradrm driver are both part of the same code-base, so this
seems trivial to achieve.
> Second problem is that host1x driver creates tegradrm device even if
> tegradrm isn't loaded to system.
That's fine. If there's no driver, the device simply won't be probe()d.
That's just like a device node existing in device tree, but the driver
for it not being enabled in the kernel, or the relevant module not being
inserted.
> These mean that the device has to be created in tegra-drm module to have
I definitely disagree here.
_______________________________________________
dri-devel mailing list
dri-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/dri-devel
