Re: drivers/w1/: why is dscore.c not ds9490r.c ?

[Evgeniy Polyakov <johnpol@2ka.mipt.ru>]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 2115 bytes --]

On Mon, 2004-11-22 at 18:19 +0100, Adrian Bunk wrote:
> On Mon, Nov 22, 2004 at 08:05:09PM +0300, Evgeniy Polyakov wrote:
> > On Mon, 2004-11-22 at 17:51 +0100, Adrian Bunk wrote:
> > > On Mon, Nov 22, 2004 at 07:25:45PM +0300, Evgeniy Polyakov wrote:
> > > > 
> > > > > How would a different w1 bus master chip look like in 
> > > > > drivers/w1/Makefile?
> > > > 
> > > > obj-m: proprietary_module.o
> > > > proprietary_module-objs: dscore.o proprietary_module_init.o
> > > > 
> > > > Actually it will live outside the kernel tree, but will require ds2490
> > > > driver.
> > > > It could be called ds2490.c but I think dscore is better name.
> > > 
> > > Why are you talking about proprietary modules living outside the kernel 
> > > tree?
> > > 
> > > The only interesting case is the one of modules shipped with the kernel.
> > > And for them, this will break at link time if two such modules are 
> > > included statically into the kernel.
> > 
> > If we _currently_ do not have any open hw/module that depends on ds2490
> > core then it does not
> > mean that tomorrow noone will add it.
> 
> Once again:
>   _this will break at link time if two such modules are included 
>    statically into the kernel_
> 
> obj-$(CONFIG_W1_DS9490)         += ds9490r.o 
> ds9490r-objs    := dscore.o
> 
> obj-$(CONFIG_W1_FOO)         += foo.o 
> foo-objs    := dscore.o
> 

that should be follwing:

Kconfig:
foo depends on ds9490r

obj-$() += foo.o
foo-objs := foo_1.o foo_2.o

It just happened that ds9490r does not need any other parts but
dscore.o.
That is why ds9490r.o have only dscore.o in it's dependency.

> This will break with CONFIG_W1_DS9490=y and CONFIG_W1_FOO=y.
> 
> 
> That drivers/w1/ contains many EXPORT_SYMBOL's with no in-kernel users 
> is a different issue I might send a separate patch for (that besides 
> proprietary modules there might come some day open source drivers using 
> them is not a reason).

Why remove existing non disturbing set of exported functions?
Are they violate some unknown issues?

> 
> cu
> Adrian
> 
-- 

[-- Attachment #2: This is a digitally signed message part --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 189 bytes --]