On Tue, Jul 19, 2016 at 10:31:54AM +0200, Michal Suchanek wrote: > On 19 July 2016 at 01:02, Mark Brown <broonie@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > On Tue, Jul 19, 2016 at 12:35:41AM +0200, Michal Suchanek wrote: > >> SPI slave devices are not created when looking up driver for the slave > >> fails. Create a device anyway so it can be used with spidev. > > Nothing has change since you last sent this patch which converts > > of_modailias_node() into something which looks up a driver so the > > patch description still fails to describe what the patch is doing. > I have split the other part of the patch. Regarding the commit message > if you have suggestion for better wording please do share it. As covered in SubmittingPatches your commit message should describe what the change does and what the intended effect is. If we were looking for a device driver the code would be looking up a struct device_driver or some other struct that contains one. > From my point of view the conceptual change described in the commit message > is that whenever SPI slave node is encountered in devicetree you get either > a device with active driver or a device with no driver whereas > previously you either > got a device with active driver or no device. So yes, it's about This is not the case, it is perfectly possible to have a device with no driver bound to it otherwise it would not be possible to use loadable modules for drivers.
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
