From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Jean Delvare Subject: Re: [PATCH] modpost: i2c aliases need no trailing wildcard Date: Mon, 5 May 2008 10:48:16 +0200 Message-ID: <20080505104816.1f666613@hyperion.delvare> References: <20080502203721.70c5dc09@hyperion.delvare> <200805051009.06159.rusty@rustcorp.com.au> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: In-Reply-To: <200805051009.06159.rusty@rustcorp.com.au> Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org To: Rusty Russell Cc: LKML , Sam Ravnborg , Kay Sievers , Linux I2C List-Id: linux-i2c@vger.kernel.org Hi Rusty, On Mon, 5 May 2008 10:09:05 +1000, Rusty Russell wrote: > On Saturday 03 May 2008 04:37:21 Jean Delvare wrote: > > Hi all, > > > > [Once more with Sam's address fixed, sorry for the noise.] > > > > Not all device types need a wildcard at the end of their module > > aliases. In particular, for i2c module aliases, the trailing wildcard > > is not only unneeded, it could also cause the wrong driver to be > > loaded. > > Hi Jean, > > i2c would have been better using a terminator char after the device name. > The wildcard would then allow future extensions without having the current > potential confusion. This has been discussed already: http://lists.lm-sensors.org/pipermail/i2c/2008-April/003429.html I understand that the idea of the trailing wildcard was to allow for future extensions, however in the case of i2c I can't foresee any such extension. On top of that, it really only matters for external drivers (for in-tree drivers, if the alias format changes, the drivers will also be updated so no harm done) and I don't think external drivers are worth the effort and cost of anticipating a change which most certainly will never happen. > Still, there's nothing wrong with this patch, happy for you to send it. > > Acked-by: Rusty Russell Thanks, -- Jean Delvare