lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2018]   [Jan]   [15]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: [PATCH] Documentation: i2c: drop unnecessary .owner field in examples
On Mon, Jan 15, 2018 at 10:24:52PM +0200, Andy Shevchenko wrote:
> On Mon, Jan 15, 2018 at 2:08 PM, Nicholas Mc Guire <hofrat@osadl.org> wrote:
> > From: Nicholas Mc Guire <hofrat@osadl.at>
> >
> > Currently there are a few drivers that still set the .owner
> > in the i2c_driver structure - all of which are reported by
> > coccinelle (scripts/coccinelle/api/platform_no_drv_owner.cocci)
> > and there are no cases that set the .onwer and do not call any
> > of the functions that set the .owner field anyway in any of the
> > drivers (checked by a modified coccinelle script based on the
> > above) so it seems that the examples are no longer valid and
> > .owner = THIS_MODULE, can be removed here.
> >
> > While at it an obvious typo (new new) was also fixed.
>
> AFAIU It is right only in case when someone does this, e.g.
> module_i2c_driver() macro. Otherwise the field is pretty valid and
> must be filled.

It gets filled with i2c_add_driver. module_i2c_driver uses
i2c_add_driver. I was about to suggest to keep the field in the old
driver and describe that it can be removed when using one of
i2c_add_driver or module_i2c_driver.

But then I realised that the kernel tree does not have any such old
drivers anymore and I couldn't even find out-of-tree code via some
search engines (I tried looking for "I2C_CLIENT_INSMOD").

I consider this obsolete and irrelevant these days. It might be good to
simply remove it to not confuse users.

Thoughts?

[unhandled content-type:application/pgp-signature]
\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2018-01-15 21:29    [W:0.039 / U:4.136 seconds]
©2003-2018 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site