On Fri, May 11, 2012 at 01:26:37PM -0500, H Hartley Sweeten wrote: > On Friday, May 11, 2012 11:14 AM, Ian Abbott wrote: > > Okay, but I don't think it's worth doing three patches for each driver > > where one would do. Adding a one-line .name = "foo", to the single > > patch for each driver you were planning to do anyway seems like a > > trivial addition that could be slotted into the patch without too much > > argument from the "one change per patch" folks, especially if you > > mention the purpose of that line in the commit message. (I'd defer to > > the better judgement of Greg though.) > > With this patch my main goal was to not "break" any of the drivers. > > As a follow-up to this patch I was going to use the macro in all the > pci drivers that have been refactored. Similar to what I did with the > module_comedi_driver macro. When I do that I can add the static > name field to those drivers. > > How about doing this in the register function: > > If (!pci_driver->name) > pci_driver->name = comedi_driver->driver_name; > > This way all the drivers that still need to be refactored will still work. > > After all the drivers have been updated, those two lines can be > removed. > > So we have this patch and one big patch updating all the refactored > drivers. Some number of patches refactoring the remaining drivers > and using the module_comedi_pci_driver macro. Then one last > patch removing the check above. > > How does that sound? That sounds reasonable to me. greg k-h _______________________________________________ devel mailing list devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx http://driverdev.linuxdriverproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
