lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2019]   [Jun]   [24]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
Patch in this message
/
SubjectRe: [PATCH v2 1/2] include: linux: siox: more for declaring siox drivers
From
Date
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

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2019-06-24 07:35    [W:0.054 / U:12.312 seconds]
©2003-2018 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site