On Tue, 4 Oct 2022 at 11:40, Arnaud Pouliquen
<arnaud.pouliquen@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> The checkpatch tool complains that "virtio,rproc" is not documented.
> But it is not possible to probe the device "rproc-virtio" by declaring
> it in the device tree. So documenting it in the bindings does not make
> sense.
> This commit solves the checkpatch warning by suppressing the useless
> of_match_table.
>
> Fix-suggested-by: Rob Herring <robh@xxxxxxxxxx>
I'll change that for "Suggested-by:"
> Fixes: 1d7b61c06dc3 ("remoteproc: virtio: Create platform device for the remoteproc_virtio")
>
> Signed-off-by: Arnaud Pouliquen <arnaud.pouliquen@xxxxxxxxxxx>
> ---
> drivers/remoteproc/remoteproc_virtio.c | 6 ------
> 1 file changed, 6 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/drivers/remoteproc/remoteproc_virtio.c b/drivers/remoteproc/remoteproc_virtio.c
> index a29e3b8ff69c..26a7d8c498bc 100644
> --- a/drivers/remoteproc/remoteproc_virtio.c
> +++ b/drivers/remoteproc/remoteproc_virtio.c
> @@ -593,17 +593,11 @@ static int rproc_virtio_remove(struct platform_device *pdev)
> }
>
> /* Platform driver */
> -static const struct of_device_id rproc_virtio_match[] = {
> - { .compatible = "virtio,rproc" },
> - {},
> -};
> -
> static struct platform_driver rproc_virtio_driver = {
> .probe = rproc_virtio_probe,
> .remove = rproc_virtio_remove,
> .driver = {
> .name = "rproc-virtio",
> - .of_match_table = rproc_virtio_match,
Yes, this is quite simple and slick. Rob - is this what you meant earlier on?
> },
> };
> builtin_platform_driver(rproc_virtio_driver);
> --
> 2.24.3
>
