From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mail-pw0-f51.google.com (mail-pw0-f51.google.com [209.85.160.51]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA (128/128 bits)) (Client CN "smtp.gmail.com", Issuer "Google Internet Authority" (not verified)) by ozlabs.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id C926BB6F9F for ; Sat, 25 Feb 2012 09:20:40 +1100 (EST) Received: by pbcxa12 with SMTP id xa12so1591831pbc.38 for ; Fri, 24 Feb 2012 14:20:38 -0800 (PST) Date: Fri, 24 Feb 2012 14:19:24 -0800 From: "gregkh@linuxfoundation.org" To: Timur Tabi Subject: Re: warnings from drivers/tty/ehv_bytechan.c Message-ID: <20120224221924.GA28198@kroah.com> References: <20120220072352.4c8131bbcea69afc007a4297@canb.auug.org.au> <4F424985.2020706@freescale.com> <20120224215008.GB25330@kroah.com> <4F48086C.5010407@freescale.com> <20120224220623.GA29400@kroah.com> <4F480BE8.9080606@freescale.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii In-Reply-To: <4F480BE8.9080606@freescale.com> Cc: Stephen Rothwell , ppc-dev List-Id: Linux on PowerPC Developers Mail List List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , On Fri, Feb 24, 2012 at 04:15:04PM -0600, Timur Tabi wrote: > gregkh@linuxfoundation.org wrote: > >> > That's the simplest approach, for use. The TTY portion of the driver can > >> > be used as a module. Is there any real value in loading a TTY driver as a > >> > module? > > > Depends on the hardware it supports :) > > > >> > In this case, the console support for byte channels would not be > >> > available. > > > Then it doesn't make sense, right? > > I guess that's my question. Is there a real use case for having console > output go to the serial port, and TTY go to a byte channel? Even if you > wanted to do that, I supposed you don't need to load the byte channel > driver as a module to get that behavior. > > Anyway, that's all academic. A more important question is: now that the > driver can't be compiled as a module, should I change module_init() to > something else (like device_initcall)? > > Should I remove this line? > > #include No, no need to, leave it as-is if it builds properly. greg k-h