linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v5 3/8] pinctrl: cygnus: add initial IOMUX driver support

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

Message-ID: <54FDF72E.2010806@broadcom.com>
Date:	Mon, 9 Mar 2015 12:40:30 -0700
From:	Ray Jui <rjui@...adcom.com>
To:	Paul Bolle <pebolle@...cali.nl>
CC:	Linus Walleij <linus.walleij@...aro.org>,
	Alexandre Courbot <gnurou@...il.com>,
	Stephen Warren <swarren@...dotorg.org>,
	Rob Herring <robh+dt@...nel.org>,
	Pawel Moll <pawel.moll@....com>,
	Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@....com>,
	Ian Campbell <ijc+devicetree@...lion.org.uk>,
	"Kumar Gala" <galak@...eaurora.org>,
	Grant Likely <grant.likely@...aro.org>,
	Christian Daudt <bcm@...thebug.org>,
	Matt Porter <mporter@...aro.org>,
	Florian Fainelli <f.fainelli@...il.com>,
	Russell King <linux@....linux.org.uk>,
	Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>,
	Scott Branden <sbranden@...adcom.com>,
	Dmitry Torokhov <dtor@...gle.com>,
	Anatol Pomazau <anatol@...gle.com>,
	"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	"linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org" 
	<linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org>,
	"linux-gpio@...r.kernel.org" <linux-gpio@...r.kernel.org>,
	bcm-kernel-feedback-list <bcm-kernel-feedback-list@...adcom.com>,
	"devicetree@...r.kernel.org" <devicetree@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v5 3/8] pinctrl: cygnus: add initial IOMUX driver support



On 3/9/2015 12:30 PM, Paul Bolle wrote:
> Ray Jui schreef op ma 09-03-2015 om 12:00 [-0700]:
>> I think it depends on how you see it. Based on this logic, then one can
>> also argue comments in the code will be pre-processed away and are not
>> needed. They at least serve the same documentation purpose in a way.
> 
> So why not make them comments? And even that might not be needed:
> - MODULE_LICENSE() only summarizes, in just a few words, what takes a
> few paragraphs in the customary comment at the top of a file;
> - MODULE_DESCRIPTION() repeats what, in general, has been said in the
> Kconfig entry for that driver and in the git commit explanation;
> - and I'm not sure what the benefit is of MODULE_AUTHOR() in the first
> place (even for actually modular drivers).
> 
>> So
>> far I haven't seen other people complaining that having these module
>> based macros in the driver are confusing when the Kconfig has a bool.
> 
> Perhaps that's just because review doesn't spot all issues. Patch
> bandwidth exceeding review bandwidth and all that.

I don't see this as an "issue" to be quite honest. By saying that, I at
least agree with you that these are not information that's mandatory to
be in the driver given what we already have. MODULE_LICENSE is covered
by license header. MODULE_DESCRIPTION is covered by descriptions in
Kconfig. MODULE_AUTHOR is much less important than what's in the
MAINTAINERS list.

Since I have to submit a new patch series to address the "ngpios" issue
that Linus mentioned in the other email, I don't mind removing all these
MODULE_* macros in the driver all together.

> 
> Anyhow, right now there's another thread discussing the questions my
> review comments raise. Eg, "The Kconfig symbol is bool, there is module
> related code in the driver, why note make the Kconfig symbol tristate
> (and the driver modular)?". I think that is one of the questions mixing
> built-in and modular semantics raises.
> 
> 
> Paul Bolle
> 

Thanks,

Ray
--
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/