On Friday 17 August 2007, Atsushi Nemoto wrote:
>
> > My preferred style for such patches puts the MODULE_ALIAS up
> > near the strange driver name, so it's more clear what's going
> > on. Putting all the MODULE_*() stuff at the end of the file
> > gets confusing in this case.
>
> OK, then I should update my patches anyway ;)
I wasn't going to be too picky here, but if you volunteer
to make things even better, I'll be happy! :)
> Which do you prefer, MODULE_ALIAS or change some strings?
>
> I guess there are some out-of-tree users of this driver, but fixing
> them is really trivial, so I don't think this is a big compatibility
> problem.
If you're willing to fix all the in-tree users, I'd think
not needing MODULE_ALIAS is best in the long term.
For these I2C drivers, the conversion to support "new style"
driver binding is new in 2.6.23, yes? If so, I don't see any
real downside to making the driver and module names match.
_ Dave
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to [email protected]
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
[Index of Archives]
[Kernel Newbies]
[Netfilter]
[Bugtraq]
[Photo]
[Stuff]
[Gimp]
[Yosemite News]
[MIPS Linux]
[ARM Linux]
[Linux Security]
[Linux RAID]
[Video 4 Linux]
[Linux for the blind]
[Linux Resources]
