On Mon, 20 Apr 2020 06:19:17 +0000
"Ardelean, Alexandru" <alexandru.Ardelean@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> On Sun, 2020-04-19 at 16:02 +0100, jic23@xxxxxxxxxx wrote:
> > From: Jonathan Cameron <Jonathan.Cameron@xxxxxxxxxx>
> >
> > Enables probing via ACPI PRP0001 route and removes an example of
> > an approach we no longer want people to copy.
> >
>
> This doesn't include 'linux/mod_devicetable.h'.
> I'm wondering now if it is needed at all.
> Should we remove it from the rest?
>
Oops.
So this is one of those classics. mod_devicetable is included by the spi
and i2c headers but there is no actual 'need' for them to do so. The
could (I think) get away with an appropriate forwards definition.
This is in contrast to the drivers that need to know what that structure
looks like (as does the i2c core device tree code etc).
So should we include it or not? I'm generally of the view that we should
for resilience but others favour minimal includes.
Jonathan
> With that addressed:
>
> Reviewed-by: Alexandru Ardelean <alexandru.ardelean@xxxxxxxxxx>
>
> > Signed-off-by: Jonathan Cameron <Jonathan.Cameron@xxxxxxxxxx>
> > ---
> > drivers/iio/light/vl6180.c | 2 +-
> > 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
> >
> > diff --git a/drivers/iio/light/vl6180.c b/drivers/iio/light/vl6180.c
> > index d9533a76b8f6..7e67d7b3bfb6 100644
> > --- a/drivers/iio/light/vl6180.c
> > +++ b/drivers/iio/light/vl6180.c
> > @@ -537,7 +537,7 @@ MODULE_DEVICE_TABLE(i2c, vl6180_id);
> > static struct i2c_driver vl6180_driver = {
> > .driver = {
> > .name = VL6180_DRV_NAME,
> > - .of_match_table = of_match_ptr(vl6180_of_match),
> > + .of_match_table = vl6180_of_match,
> > },
> > .probe = vl6180_probe,
> > .id_table = vl6180_id,
