Messages in this thread | | | From | Mike Frysinger <> | Date | Tue, 7 Jun 2011 00:39:14 -0400 | Subject | Re: [PATCH] gpio: reorganize drivers |
| |
On Mon, Jun 6, 2011 at 13:37, Grant Likely wrote: > On Mon, Jun 6, 2011 at 11:33 AM, Grant Likely wrote: >> On Mon, Jun 6, 2011 at 11:27 AM, Roland Dreier wrote: >>> On Mon, Jun 6, 2011 at 12:06 AM, Grant Likely wrote: >>>> Sort the gpio makefile and enforce the naming convention gpio-*.c for >>>> gpio drivers. >>> >>> OK, bikeshed colors here, but... what is the benefit of >>> 'drivers/gpio/gpio-xxx.c' vs >>> just 'drivers/gpio/xxx.c'? Seems like one 'gpio' should be enough for anyone... >> >> lsmod > > Specifically, module names don't give any clues about which directory > they were loaded out of, so it is useful to have the module name > reflect exactly what the module is for. Second, a lot of these > gpio/spi/i2c cores end up being stuffed into an integrated chipset > where they all pretty much share the same name, but the drivers are > for different functional blocks. ie. gpio-omap.o, spi-omap.o, > i2c-omap.o
well, more important is the opposite direction ... if we have gpio/omap.c and i2c/omap.c and spi/omap.c, which "omap.ko" is `modprobe` going to load ?
and if you `rmmod omap`, which one is going to be unloaded ?
i wonder if the module core even allows for that ... -mike -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
| |