[Added Paul Gortmaker.] Hi Shobhit, On Fri, 2015-06-19 at 12:16 +0530, Shobhit Kumar wrote: > So what is the exact big problem with this ? The main problem I have is that it's hard to read a submitter's mind. And, I think, in cases like this we need to know if the submitter just made some silly mistake or that the mismatch (between Kconfig type and code) was intentional. So each time such a mismatch is spotted the submitter ought to be asked about it. (I'd guess that one or two new drivers are submitted _each_ day. And these mismatches are quite common. I'd say I receive answers like: - "Oops, yes bool should have been tristate"; or - "Oops, forgot to clean up after noticing tristate didn't work"; or - "I just copy-and-pasted a similar driver, the module stuff isn't actually needed" at least once a week. Not sure, I don't keep track of this stuff.) Furthermore, it appears that Paul Gortmaker is on a mission to, badly summarized, untangle the module and init code. See for instance https://lkml.org/lkml/2015/5/28/809 and https://lkml.org/lkml/2015/5/31/205 . Now, I don't know whether (other) Paul is bothered by these MODULE_* macros. But Paul did submit a series that adds builtin_platform_driver(), see https://lkml.org/lkml/2015/5/10/131 . That new macro ensures built-in only code doesn't have to use module_platform_driver(), which your patch also uses. So perhaps Paul can explain some of the non-obvious issues caused by built-in only code using module specific constructs. > I can anyway shove out these macros to end the discussion. I'd rather convince you than annoy you into doing as I suggested. > BTW whether you buy the argument or not, please do treat yourself > with ice cream for being able to make such a comment. Will do. Thanks, Paul Bolle _______________________________________________ dri-devel mailing list dri-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/dri-devel
