On Mon, Jan 15, 2018 at 10:24:52PM +0200, Andy Shevchenko wrote: > On Mon, Jan 15, 2018 at 2:08 PM, Nicholas Mc Guire <hofrat@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > From: Nicholas Mc Guire <hofrat@xxxxxxxx> > > > > Currently there are a few drivers that still set the .owner > > in the i2c_driver structure - all of which are reported by > > coccinelle (scripts/coccinelle/api/platform_no_drv_owner.cocci) > > and there are no cases that set the .onwer and do not call any > > of the functions that set the .owner field anyway in any of the > > drivers (checked by a modified coccinelle script based on the > > above) so it seems that the examples are no longer valid and > > .owner = THIS_MODULE, can be removed here. > > > > While at it an obvious typo (new new) was also fixed. > > AFAIU It is right only in case when someone does this, e.g. > module_i2c_driver() macro. Otherwise the field is pretty valid and > must be filled. It gets filled with i2c_add_driver. module_i2c_driver uses i2c_add_driver. I was about to suggest to keep the field in the old driver and describe that it can be removed when using one of i2c_add_driver or module_i2c_driver. But then I realised that the kernel tree does not have any such old drivers anymore and I couldn't even find out-of-tree code via some search engines (I tried looking for "I2C_CLIENT_INSMOD"). I consider this obsolete and irrelevant these days. It might be good to simply remove it to not confuse users. Thoughts?
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
