On 12/21/2012 11:50 PM, Terje Bergström wrote:
On 21.12.2012 16:36, Thierry Reding wrote:
On Fri, Dec 21, 2012 at 01:39:21PM +0200, Terje Bergstrom wrote:
+static struct platform_driver tegra_drm_platform_driver = {
- .driver = {
.name = "tegradrm",This should be "tegra-drm" to match the module name.
We've actually created two problems.
First is that the device name should match driver name which should match module name. But host1x doesn't know the module name of tegradrm.
There's no hard requirement for the device/driver name to match the module name. It's good thing to do, but nothing will blow up if it don't (modules can use MODULE_ALIAS() to declare which drivers they expose).
But, what's the problem with host1x knowing the driver name; the host1x driver and tegradrm driver are both part of the same code-base, so this seems trivial to achieve.
Second problem is that host1x driver creates tegradrm device even if tegradrm isn't loaded to system.
That's fine. If there's no driver, the device simply won't be probe()d. That's just like a device node existing in device tree, but the driver for it not being enabled in the kernel, or the relevant module not being inserted.
These mean that the device has to be created in tegra-drm module to have
I definitely disagree here.