On Thursday 21 April 2022 11:31:16 Conor.Dooley@xxxxxxxxxxxxx wrote: > On 20/04/2022 16:41, Pali Rohár wrote: > > EXTERNAL EMAIL: Do not click links or open attachments unless you know the content is safe > > > > On Wednesday 20 April 2022 11:34:49 Uwe Kleine-König wrote: > >> There are no known reasons to not use this driver as a module, > > > > Hello! I think that there are reasons. pcie-microchip-host.c driver uses > > builtin_platform_driver() and not module_platform_driver(); it does not > > implement .remove driver callback and also has set suppress_bind_attrs > > to true. I think that all these parts should be properly implemented > > otherwise it does not have sane reasons to use driver as loadable and > > unloadable module. > > > > Btw, I implemented proper module support for pci-mvebu.c driver > > recently, so you can take an inspiration. See: > > https://lore.kernel.org/linux-pci/20211126144307.7568-1-pali@xxxxxxxxxx/t/#u > > Hmm, so what is the way forward here, are you happy to do it yourself > or do you not have the hardware/would rather that we did it? Hello! It would be needed to implement remove callback. But I do not have hardware for doing and testing it, so I do not feel that I can do it. I think that somebody with hardware and documentation should look at it and decide what is required to do in remove/cleanup procedure. Also it would be needed to investigate if something more is needed to change builtin_platform_driver() to module_platform_driver(). If there are not some other steps which needs to be done in correct sequence and usage of builtin_platform_driver() currently ensures it. > If you'd prefer that we did it, do we change the driver & submit that > as a series with this patch as patch 2/2? Or should it be a single > patch with your suggested-by? Feel free to put it into one patch. It is single change which implements one new feature = module support. > Not quite sure what the expectation is with attestation for something > like this. > > Thanks, > Conor
