Re: [PATCH v2 1/2] include: linux: siox: more for declaring siox drivers

["Enrico Weigelt, metux IT consult" <lkml@xxxxxxxxx>]

On 18.06.19 18:17, Uwe Kleine-König wrote:

Hi,

> I like the change. Just noticed that the Subject line is a bit strange> though. if "more for" is proper English then it's news to me. I'd
write:> > 	siox: add helper macro to simplify driver registration
Good point, seems I've must have been totally under-coffeined, and
some words on nasty phone interrupts :o

I'll fix that.

<snip>

>> diff --git a/include/linux/siox.h b/include/linux/siox.h>> index d79624e..d53b2b2 100644>> --- a/include/linux/siox.h>> +++
b/include/linux/siox.h>> @@ -75,3 +75,12 @@ static inline void
siox_driver_unregister(struct siox_driver *sdriver)>>  {>>  	return
driver_unregister(&sdriver->driver);>>  }>> +>> +/* module_siox_driver()
- Helper macro for drivers that don't do> > I'd prefer /* on a separate
line as documented in> Documentation/process/coding-style.rst (for
non-net code).
Done.

Do we have a tool to check for that ? checkpatch doesn't seem to care
about it.

>> + * anything special in module init/exit.  This eliminates a lot of>> + * boilerplate.  Each module may only use this macro once, and>> + *
calling it replaces module_init() and module_exit()>> + */>> +#define
module_siox_driver(__siox_driver) \>> +	module_driver(__siox_driver,
siox_driver_register, \>> +			siox_driver_unregister)>> -- > > Sorry I
didn't notice these two things in the first round already.
No problem, that's why we have multiple rounds :)


I'll send v3 in a few minutes ...


--mtx

-- 
Enrico Weigelt, metux IT consult
Free software and Linux embedded engineering
info@xxxxxxxxx -- +49-151-27565287