Messages in this thread | | | Subject | Re: [PATCH] x86: punit_atom: punit device state debug driver | From | Paul Bolle <> | Date | Sat, 25 Apr 2015 11:43:19 +0200 |
| |
On Fri, 2015-04-24 at 14:42 -0700, Srinivas Pandruvada wrote: > --- a/arch/x86/Kconfig > +++ b/arch/x86/Kconfig > > +config PUNIT_ATOM > + bool "ATOM Punit debug driver" > + def_bool n
The kconfig tools will do what you mean here. But just default n
is neater. And, moreover, even that is probably not needed, as n is the default anyway.
> + depends on DEBUG_FS > + select IOSF_MBI > + ---help--- > + This is a debug driver, which gets the power states > + of all Punit North Complex devices.The power states of > + each IP is exposed as part of the debugfs interface.
(This menu will show up in menuconfig's main menu. Shouldn't this be put in some debug related menu?)
> --- a/arch/x86/kernel/Makefile > +++ b/arch/x86/kernel/Makefile
> +obj-$(CONFIG_PUNIT_ATOM) += punit_atom.o
PUNIT_ATOM is a bool symbol, so punit_atom.o will never be part of a module, correct?
> --- /dev/null > +++ b/arch/x86/kernel/punit_atom.c
> +#include <linux/module.h>
Is this include needed (except for the stuff that will be preprocessed away, see below)?
> +MODULE_DEVICE_TABLE(x86cpu, intel_punit_cpu_ids);
MODULE_DEVICE_TABLE will be preprocessed away for built-in code, according to include/linux/module.h.
> +static void __exit punit_atom_exit(void) > +{ > + punit_dbgfs_unregister(); > +} > + > +module_init(punit_atom_init);
According to include/linux/init.h this is equal to device_initcall(punit_atom_init);
for built-in code.
> +module_exit(punit_atom_exit);
Built-in only code will never call that function.
> +MODULE_AUTHOR("Kumar P, Mahesh <mahesh.kumar.p.intel.com>");
(<mahesh.kumar.p@intel.com>?)
> +MODULE_DESCRIPTION("Driver for Punit devices states debugging"); > +MODULE_LICENSE("GPL v2");
And these three macros will be effectively preprocessed away for built-in only code.
But, on the other hand, changing PUNIT_ATOM to tristate allows it to be built as a module (I just did that). So perhaps that was your intention?
Paul Bolle
| |