linux-kernel - Re: [RFC] drivercore: Add helper macro for platform

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:	Sun, 4 Dec 2011 11:27:20 +0100
From:	Geert Uytterhoeven <geert@...ux-m68k.org>
To:	Lars-Peter Clausen <lars@...afoo.de>
Cc:	Greg KH <greg@...ah.com>, Grant Likely <grant.likely@...retlab.ca>,
	Mark Brown <broonie@...nsource.wolfsonmicro.com>,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [RFC] drivercore: Add helper macro for platform_driver boilerplate

Hi Lars,

On Sun, Dec 4, 2011 at 10:36, Lars-Peter Clausen <lars@...afoo.de> wrote:
> On 12/04/2011 09:39 AM, Geert Uytterhoeven wrote:
>> On Wed, Oct 5, 2011 at 08:56, Greg KH <greg@...ah.com> wrote:
>>> On Tue, Oct 04, 2011 at 05:26:55PM -0600, Grant Likely wrote:
>>>> For simple modules that contain a single platform_driver without any
>>>> additional setup code then ends up being a block of duplicated
>>>> boilerplate.  This patch adds a new macro, module_platform_driver(),
>>>> which replaces the module_init()/module_exit() registrations with
>>>> template functions.
>>>>
>>>> This patch also converts all the relevant spi drivers to use the new
>>>> macro.  There are a lot of drivers in the tree that are using this
>>>> pattern and could be converted.
>>>>
>>>> It also fixes up some incorrect section annotations where I found
>>>> them.
>>>>
>>>> Signed-off-by: Grant Likely <grant.likely@...retlab.ca>
>>>> ---
>>>>
>>>> I think this is useful, and I like the diffstat that it produces.
>>>> What does everyone else think of this approach?  I can do versions for
>>>> i2c_drivers and spi_drivers too.
>>>>
>>>> This is *not* tested very much.  I'm circulating mostly for review for
>>>> now.
>>>
>>> The idea looks sane to me, I like the diffstat it ends up creating, nice
>>> job.
>>
>> I guess the macro can be extended (or wrapped around another one) to include
>> the bus type, so it applies to all bus types?
>>
>> It's a pity some use <bus>_register_driver(), while others use
>> <bus>_driver_register(),
>> so this needs some refactoring for unification.
>>
>
> I've recently posted a patch series which extends the macro to take the bus's
> register/unregister function names so it can be used to build macros similar to
> module_platform_driver. [1] I used the register/unregister function names
> instead of the bus type, exactly because there is no common naming convention
> for these. So you still need to define the macro for a new bus type, but it
> should be a two-liner.
>
> - Lars
>
> [1] https://lkml.org/lkml/2011/11/16/77

Great! Thanks, I missed that one.

Gr{oetje,eeting}s,

                        Geert

--
Geert Uytterhoeven -- There's lots of Linux beyond ia32 -- geert@...ux-m68k.org

In personal conversations with technical people, I call myself a hacker. But
when I'm talking to journalists I just say "programmer" or something like that.
                                -- Linus Torvalds
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/