On 10/06/2019 14:03, Anders Roxell wrote: > On Thu, 6 Jun 2019 at 12:13, Hans Verkuil <hverkuil@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: >> >> On 6/6/19 11:47 AM, Anders Roxell wrote: >>> When building with CONFIG_VIDEO_CODA and CONFIG_CODA_FS enabled as >>> loadable modules, we see the following warning: >>> >>> warning: same module names found: >>> fs/coda/coda.ko >>> drivers/media/platform/coda/coda.ko >>> >>> Rework so media coda matches the config fragment. Leaving CODA_FS as is >>> since thats a well known module. >>> >>> Signed-off-by: Anders Roxell <anders.roxell@xxxxxxxxxx> >>> --- >>> drivers/media/platform/coda/Makefile | 4 ++-- >>> 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-) >>> >>> diff --git a/drivers/media/platform/coda/Makefile b/drivers/media/platform/coda/Makefile >>> index 54e9a73a92ab..588e6bf7c190 100644 >>> --- a/drivers/media/platform/coda/Makefile >>> +++ b/drivers/media/platform/coda/Makefile >>> @@ -1,6 +1,6 @@ >>> # SPDX-License-Identifier: GPL-2.0-only >>> >>> -coda-objs := coda-common.o coda-bit.o coda-gdi.o coda-h264.o coda-mpeg2.o coda-mpeg4.o coda-jpeg.o >>> +video-coda-objs := coda-common.o coda-bit.o coda-gdi.o coda-h264.o coda-mpeg2.o coda-mpeg4.o coda-jpeg.o >>> >>> -obj-$(CONFIG_VIDEO_CODA) += coda.o >>> +obj-$(CONFIG_VIDEO_CODA) += video-coda.o >> >> How about imx-coda? video-coda suggests it is part of the video subsystem, >> which it isn't. > > I'll resend a v2 shortly with imx-coda instead. What about other vendor SoCs implementing the Coda IP block which are not an imx? I'd prefer a more generic name - maybe media-coda. Thanks, Matt > > > Cheers, > Anders > >> >> Regards, >> >> Hans >> >>> obj-$(CONFIG_VIDEO_IMX_VDOA) += imx-vdoa.o >>> >>
