[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <OS3PR01MB8460D00B7C988DCC13173CAAC2AA9@OS3PR01MB8460.jpnprd01.prod.outlook.com>
Date: Wed, 22 Feb 2023 22:38:00 +0000
From: DLG Adam Ward <DLG-Adam.Ward.opensource@...renesas.com>
To: Nick Alcock <nick.alcock@...cle.com>,
"mcgrof@...nel.org" <mcgrof@...nel.org>
CC: "linux-modules@...r.kernel.org" <linux-modules@...r.kernel.org>,
"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Hitomi Hasegawa <hasegawa-hitomi@...itsu.com>,
Support Opensource <support.opensource@...semi.com>,
Lee Jones <lee@...nel.org>
Subject: RE: [PATCH 18/27] kbuild, mfd: remove MODULE_LICENSE in non-modules
On 22/02/2023 12:15, Nick Alcock wrote:
>Since commit 8b41fc4454e ("kbuild: create modules.builtin without Makefile.modbuiltin or tristate.conf"), MODULE_LICENSE declarations are used to identify modules. As a consequence, uses of the macro in non-modules will cause modprobe to misidentify their containing object file as a module when it is not (false positives), and modprobe might succeed rather than failing with a suitable error message.
>
>So remove it in the files in this commit, none of which can be built as modules.
Makes sense - but if you need to do a V2, would you mind removing the erroneous claim on DA9055 at the same time?
https://elixir.bootlin.com/linux/latest/source/drivers/mfd/Kconfig#L364
Strangely, seems it was always there, yet always bool...
Reviewed-by: Adam Ward <DLG-Adam.Ward.opensource@...renesas.com>
Powered by blists - more mailing lists