Thank you very much for your advice
On 31/07/2023 08:51, krzysztof.kozlowski@xxxxxxxxxx wrote:
> On 31/07/2023 08:41, wangweidong.a@xxxxxxxxxx wrote:
>>
>>>> +
>>>> + return 0;
>>>> +}
>>>> +
>>>> +int aw88261_dev_init(struct aw88261_device *aw_dev, struct aw_container *aw_cfg)
>>
>>> You already used this function in patch #3, so your order of patches is
>>> confusing.
>>
>> Do I need to change the order of patch?
>> Do I neeed to put aw88261_device.c aw88261_device.h in patch #3 and
>> put aw88261.c aw88261.h in patch #4?
>> Is that how you change the order?
> Your patchset should be logically ordered, so first you add bindings
> (because it must be before their users), then you one piece, then other
> etc. I understand that only the last patch will make everything
> buildable, but still code should be added before its user/caller.
Thank you very much for your suggestion.
Do I need to keep the Makefile and kconfig files in a separate patch?
...
>>
>>>> +
>>>> + switch (chip_id) {
>>>> + case AW88261_CHIP_ID:
>>>> + ret = aw_dev_init((*aw_dev));
>>>> + break;
>>>> + default:
>>>> + ret = -EINVAL;
>>>> + dev_err((*aw_dev)->dev, "unsupported device");
>>>> + break;
>>>> + }
>>>> +
>>>> + return ret;
>>>> +}
>>>> +
>>>> +MODULE_DESCRIPTION("AW88261 device");
>>>> +MODULE_LICENSE("GPL v2");
>>
>>> Wait, is this a module? Does not look complete. I already saw one
>>> module, so what is this for? For which module?
>>
>> Can it be changed to MODULE_DESCRIPTION("AW88261 device lib")?
> If this is a module, then it can. If this is not a module, then why
> would you ever like to do it?
>> The function in the aw88261_device.c file, which I used in the aw88261.c file.
> Functions are not modules.
Thank you very much for your suggestion.
I will delete MODULE_DESCRIPTION and MODULE_LICENSE
Best regards,
Weidong Wang
