Messages in this thread Patch in this message | | | Subject | Re: [PATCH v2 1/2] include: linux: siox: more for declaring siox drivers | From | "Enrico Weigelt, metux IT consult" <> | Date | Mon, 24 Jun 2019 07:33:42 +0200 |
| |
On 18.06.19 18:17, Uwe Kleine-König wrote:
Hi,
> I like the change. Just noticed that the Subject line is a bit strange> though. if "more for" is proper English then it's news to me. I'd write:> > siox: add helper macro to simplify driver registration Good point, seems I've must have been totally under-coffeined, and some words on nasty phone interrupts :o
I'll fix that.
<snip>
>> diff --git a/include/linux/siox.h b/include/linux/siox.h>> index d79624e..d53b2b2 100644>> --- a/include/linux/siox.h>> +++ b/include/linux/siox.h>> @@ -75,3 +75,12 @@ static inline void siox_driver_unregister(struct siox_driver *sdriver)>> {>> return driver_unregister(&sdriver->driver);>> }>> +>> +/* module_siox_driver() - Helper macro for drivers that don't do> > I'd prefer /* on a separate line as documented in> Documentation/process/coding-style.rst (for non-net code). Done.
Do we have a tool to check for that ? checkpatch doesn't seem to care about it.
>> + * anything special in module init/exit. This eliminates a lot of>> + * boilerplate. Each module may only use this macro once, and>> + * calling it replaces module_init() and module_exit()>> + */>> +#define module_siox_driver(__siox_driver) \>> + module_driver(__siox_driver, siox_driver_register, \>> + siox_driver_unregister)>> -- > > Sorry I didn't notice these two things in the first round already. No problem, that's why we have multiple rounds :)
I'll send v3 in a few minutes ...
--mtx
-- Enrico Weigelt, metux IT consult Free software and Linux embedded engineering info@metux.net -- +49-151-27565287
| |