On Sat, Apr 10, 2021 at 12:08 AM Andy Shevchenko <andy.shevchenko@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > On Friday, April 9, 2021, Srinivas Neeli <srinivas.neeli@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: >> >> module_platform_driver() makes the code simpler by eliminating >> boilerplate code. >> >> Signed-off-by: Srinivas Neeli <srinivas.neeli@xxxxxxxxxx> >> --- >> drivers/gpio/gpio-zynq.c | 17 +---------------- >> 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 16 deletions(-) >> >> diff --git a/drivers/gpio/gpio-zynq.c b/drivers/gpio/gpio-zynq.c >> index 3521c1dc3ac0..bb1ac0c5cf26 100644 >> --- a/drivers/gpio/gpio-zynq.c >> +++ b/drivers/gpio/gpio-zynq.c >> @@ -1020,22 +1020,7 @@ static struct platform_driver zynq_gpio_driver = { >> .remove = zynq_gpio_remove, >> }; >> >> -/** >> - * zynq_gpio_init - Initial driver registration call >> - * >> - * Return: value from platform_driver_register >> - */ >> -static int __init zynq_gpio_init(void) >> -{ >> - return platform_driver_register(&zynq_gpio_driver); >> -} >> -postcore_initcall(zynq_gpio_init); > > > > It’s not an equivalent. Have you tested on actual hardware? If no, there is no go for this change. > Yep, this has been like this since the initial introduction of this driver. Unfortunately there's no documented reason so unless we can test it, it has to stay this way. Bartosz