Hi,
people found out that for platform_driver, we don't need to set the
.owner field because this is done by the platform driver core. So far,
so good. However, now I got patches removing the .owner field for this
single i2c driver or for that one. To prevent getting thousands of
patches fixing si
> @match1@
> declarer name module_platform_driver;
> declarer name module_platform_driver_probe;
> identifier __driver;
> @@
> (
> module_platform_driver(__driver);
> |
> module_platform_driver_probe(__driver, ...);
> )
>
> @fix1 depends on match1@
> identifier match1.__driver;
> @@
>
On Friday 10 October 2014 09:24:39 Wolfram Sang wrote:
> people found out that for platform_driver, we don't need to set the
> .owner field because this is done by the platform driver core. So far,
> so good. However, now I got patches removing the .owner field for this
> single i2c driver or for t
On Fri, Oct 10, 2014 at 09:24:39AM +0200, Wolfram Sang wrote:
> people found out that for platform_driver, we don't need to set the
> .owner field because this is done by the platform driver core. So far,
> so good. However, now I got patches removing the .owner field for this
> single i2c driver o
> The semantic patch looks fine.
Wow, nothing to improve on the semantic patch? Now I am proud :) Thanks
Julia for your support, as always!
> If you think that it would be useful to have this in the Linux kernel, so
> people don't add the owner initializer back in the future, you can try
>
> co
Hi Arnd,
thanks for taking a look!
On Fri, Oct 10, 2014 at 10:30:08AM +0200, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
> On Friday 10 October 2014 09:24:39 Wolfram Sang wrote:
> > people found out that for platform_driver, we don't need to set the
> > .owner field because this is done by the platform driver core. So
On Fri, Oct 10, 2014 at 09:36:27AM +0100, Russell King - ARM Linux wrote:
> On Fri, Oct 10, 2014 at 09:24:39AM +0200, Wolfram Sang wrote:
> > people found out that for platform_driver, we don't need to set the
> > .owner field because this is done by the platform driver core. So far,
> > so good. H
On Friday 10 October 2014 20:12:21 Wolfram Sang wrote:
> Hi Arnd,
>
> thanks for taking a look!
>
> On Fri, Oct 10, 2014 at 10:30:08AM +0200, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
> > On Friday 10 October 2014 09:24:39 Wolfram Sang wrote:
> > > people found out that for platform_driver, we don't need to set the
>
On Friday 10 October 2014 20:26:05 Wolfram Sang wrote:
>
> You got me wondering, though, that it could not be correct to call
> platform_driver_register() from the platform core instead of module
> init. I will check tomorrow. Still, this would be a bug independent of
> my series. Although I'd nee
On Fri, Oct 10, 2014 at 08:26:05PM +0200, Wolfram Sang wrote:
> platform_create_bundle() calls platform_driver_probe().
> platform_driver_probe() calls platform_driver_register().
> platform_driver_register() modifies driver.owner.
>
> So, it is correct from the point of view that it doesn't make
> > You got me wondering, though, that it could not be correct to call
> > platform_driver_register() from the platform core instead of module
> > init. I will check tomorrow. Still, this would be a bug independent of
> > my series. Although I'd need to respin it if platform_driver_probe()
> > nee
On Sat, Oct 11, 2014 at 06:56:51PM +0200, Wolfram Sang wrote:
>
> > > You got me wondering, though, that it could not be correct to call
> > > platform_driver_register() from the platform core instead of module
> > > init. I will check tomorrow. Still, this would be a bug independent of
> > > my s
On Sat, Oct 11, 2014 at 06:56:51PM +0200, Wolfram Sang wrote:
>
> > > You got me wondering, though, that it could not be correct to call
> > > platform_driver_register() from the platform core instead of module
> > > init. I will check tomorrow. Still, this would be a bug independent of
> > > my s
> I missed the one code path you pointed out, and that should be fixed,
> but that doesn't mean that the original patch should be reverted, as it
> is the way we want things to be, let's just fix up the bug and move on.
OK, that is a clear statement.
So, what is your opinion on the original clea
On Sun, Oct 12, 2014 at 07:51:46AM +0200, Wolfram Sang wrote:
>
> > I missed the one code path you pointed out, and that should be fixed,
> > but that doesn't mean that the original patch should be reverted, as it
> > is the way we want things to be, let's just fix up the bug and move on.
>
> OK,
> > So, what is your opinion on the original cleanup series removing
> > unnecessary '.owner = THIS_MODULE' lines in drivers? Helpful? Noise?
>
> Helpful, please do it. I can take it all through my driver-core tree if
> you want, that might make things easier for others.
Thanks, that might make
16 matches
Mail list logo
