On Wed, Nov 29, 2023 at 09:53:00AM +0000, Russell King (Oracle) wrote: > On Wed, Nov 29, 2023 at 03:12:18AM +0100, Christian Marangi wrote: > > diff --git a/drivers/net/phy/qcom/Makefile b/drivers/net/phy/qcom/Makefile > > index 6a68da8aaa7b..43e4d14df8ea 100644 > > --- a/drivers/net/phy/qcom/Makefile > > +++ b/drivers/net/phy/qcom/Makefile > > @@ -1,2 +1,3 @@ > > # SPDX-License-Identifier: GPL-2.0 > > -obj-$(CONFIG_AT803X_PHY) += at803x.o > > +obj-$(CONFIG_AT803X_PHY) += at803x.o common.o > > +obj-$(CONFIG_QCA83XX_PHY) += qca83xx.o common.o > > These PHY drivers can be built as modules. You will end up with several > modules - at803x.ko, qca83xx.ko and common.ko. You don't mark any > functions in common.c as exported, no module license, no author, no > description. common.ko is way too generic a name as well. > > Please think about this more and test building these drivers as a > module. > Had some fear about this... What would be the preferred way for this? Having a .ko that EXPORT symbol or making the PHY driver .ko to compile the common.o in it? Honestly I would like the second option since I would prefer not to create a .ko with shared function and EXPORT lots of symbols. On SoC it's expected to have only one of the PHY (at max 2 when the qca807x PHY will be implemented, with the at808x also present) so the size increase is minimal. (just to be more clear, talking about this makefile implementation) at803x-objs += common.o obj-$(CONFIG_AT803X_PHY) += at803x.o qca83xx-objs += common.o obj-$(CONFIG_QCA83XX_PHY) += qca83xx.o qca808x-objs += common.o obj-$(CONFIG_QCA808X_PHY) += qca808x.o For name of common.c, is qcom_ethphy_common.c a better name? -- Ansuel
