Hi, On 4/4/19 12:04 PM, Will Deacon wrote:
On Tue, Mar 26, 2019 at 05:39:38PM -0500, Jeremy Linton wrote:Lets add the MODULE_TABLE and platform id_table entries so that the SPE driver can attach to the ACPI platform device created by the core pmu code. Signed-off-by: Jeremy Linton <jeremy.linton@xxxxxxx> Reviewed-by: Sudeep Holla <sudeep.holla@xxxxxxx> --- drivers/perf/arm_spe_pmu.c | 11 +++++++++-- 1 file changed, 9 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-) diff --git a/drivers/perf/arm_spe_pmu.c b/drivers/perf/arm_spe_pmu.c index 7cb766dafe85..ffa2c76c08bb 100644 --- a/drivers/perf/arm_spe_pmu.c +++ b/drivers/perf/arm_spe_pmu.c @@ -1176,7 +1176,13 @@ static const struct of_device_id arm_spe_pmu_of_match[] = { }; MODULE_DEVICE_TABLE(of, arm_spe_pmu_of_match);-static int arm_spe_pmu_device_dt_probe(struct platform_device *pdev)+static const struct platform_device_id arm_spe_match[] = { + { "arm,spe-v1", 0},It would be nice if we could avoid duplicating this string from the ACPI parsing code.
Ok sure, I just need to find a good common place for it.
+ { } +}; +MODULE_DEVICE_TABLE(platform, arm_spe_match); + +static int arm_spe_pmu_device_probe(struct platform_device *pdev) { int ret; struct arm_spe_pmu *spe_pmu; @@ -1236,11 +1242,12 @@ static int arm_spe_pmu_device_remove(struct platform_device *pdev) }static struct platform_driver arm_spe_pmu_driver = {+ .id_table = arm_spe_match, .driver = { .name = DRVNAME, .of_match_table = of_match_ptr(arm_spe_pmu_of_match),Hmm, so some other drivers don't hook .id_table like you do, but instead hook .acpi_match_table in the driver structure. Is that not better?
This isn't actually an ACPI device, (aka not defined in the namespace), so its missing much of the ACPI functionality. I think that also means its needs to be declared this way.
Will
