On Monday 15 February 2016 11:50:48 Javier Martinez Canillas wrote:

On 02/14/2016 10:58 PM, Eddie Huang wrote:

[snip]

quoted

quoted

@@ -412,6 +418,7 @@ static struct platform_driver mtk_rtc_driver = {
     },
     .probe  = mtk_rtc_probe,
     .remove = mtk_rtc_remove,
+    .id_table = mt6397_rtc_id,
  };

  module_platform_driver(mtk_rtc_driver);

@@ -419,4 +426,3 @@ module_platform_driver(mtk_rtc_driver);
  MODULE_LICENSE("GPL v2");
  MODULE_AUTHOR("Tianping Fang <tianping.fang@mediatek.com>");
  MODULE_DESCRIPTION("RTC Driver for MediaTek MT6397 PMIC");
-MODULE_ALIAS("platform:mt6397-rtc");

This patch looks good to me, but I am wondering, since we tend to use
device tree method to match driver, do we still need support platform
device ID ?

I'm not familiar with neither this IP block nor the SoC so it is up to
you. I just noticed this issue when reviewing a regulator driver for a
similar PMIC posted by someone from mediatek.

I thought platform device was needed since the driver has a MODULE_ALIAS()
but please let me know what you prefer and I can re-spin the patch and
just remove the MODULE_ALIAS() if that makes more sense for this platform.
  

I agree. We can alway add a MODULE_DEVICE_TABLE() if we get multiple
users of this driver on architectures that don't use devicetree yet.

	Arnd