I find a lot of mistakes using struct platform_driver without owner.
So I pick up some of them including usb and net modules
Libo Chen (19):
drivers/usb/musb: add missing platform_driver owner
drivers/usb/host: add missing platform_driver owner
drivers/usb/chipidea: add missing platform_driver owner
drivers/usb/dwc3: add missing platform_driver owner
drivers/ust/renesas_usbhs: add missing platform_driver owner
drivers/usb/phy: add missing platform_driver owner
drivers/usb/gadget: add missing platform_driver owner
drivers/net/ethernet/amd: add missing platform_driver owner
drivers/net/ethernet: add missing platform_driver owner
drivers/net/ethernet/freescale: add missing platform_driver owner
drivers/net/ethernet/natsemi: add missing platform_driver owner
drivers/net/ethernet/xscale: add missing platform_driver owner
drivers/net/ethernet/calxeda: add missing platform_driver owner
drivers/net/wireless/brcm80211/brcmfmac: add missing platform_driver
owner
drivers/net/irda: add missing platform_driver owner
drivers/net/wan: add missing platform_driver owner
drivers/net/ethernet/nxp: add missing platform_driver owner
drivers/net/ethernet/marvell: add missing platform_driver owne
drivers/net/ethernet/renesas: add missing platform_driver owner
drivers/net/ethernet/amd/am79c961a.c | 1 +
drivers/net/ethernet/calxeda/xgmac.c | 1 +
drivers/net/ethernet/dnet.c | 3 ++-
drivers/net/ethernet/freescale/xgmac_mdio.c | 1 +
drivers/net/ethernet/korina.c | 1 +
drivers/net/ethernet/marvell/mvneta.c | 1 +
drivers/net/ethernet/natsemi/xtsonic.c | 1 +
drivers/net/ethernet/nxp/lpc_eth.c | 1 +
drivers/net/ethernet/renesas/sh_eth.c | 1 +
drivers/net/ethernet/xscale/ixp4xx_eth.c | 1 +
drivers/net/irda/bfin_sir.c | 1 +
drivers/net/irda/sh_irda.c | 1 +
drivers/net/irda/sh_sir.c | 1 +
drivers/net/irda/smsc-ircc2.c | 1 +
drivers/net/wan/ixp4xx_hss.c | 1 +
drivers/net/wireless/brcm80211/brcmfmac/bcmsdh_sdmmc.c | 3 ++-
drivers/usb/chipidea/ci13xxx_msm.c | 2 +-
drivers/usb/chipidea/core.c | 1 +
drivers/usb/dwc3/core.c | 1 +
drivers/usb/dwc3/dwc3-exynos.c | 1 +
drivers/usb/dwc3/dwc3-omap.c | 1 +
drivers/usb/gadget/r8a66597-udc.c | 1 +
drivers/usb/host/ehci-atmel.c | 1 +
drivers/usb/host/ehci-msm.c | 1 +
drivers/usb/host/ehci-mv.c | 1 +
drivers/usb/host/ehci-mxc.c | 1 +
drivers/usb/host/ehci-omap.c | 1 +
drivers/usb/host/ehci-spear.c | 1 +
drivers/usb/host/isp1760-if.c | 1 +
drivers/usb/host/oxu210hp-hcd.c | 1 +
drivers/usb/host/xhci-plat.c | 1 +
drivers/usb/musb/am35x.c | 1 +
drivers/usb/musb/blackfin.c | 1 +
drivers/usb/musb/da8xx.c | 1 +
drivers/usb/musb/davinci.c | 1 +
drivers/usb/musb/omap2430.c | 1 +
drivers/usb/musb/tusb6010.c | 1 +
drivers/usb/musb/ux500.c | 1 +
drivers/usb/phy/phy-rcar-usb.c | 1 +
drivers/usb/renesas_usbhs/common.c | 1 +
40 files changed, 42 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)
--
1.8.1.2
From: Libo Chen <[email protected]>
Date: Tue, 21 May 2013 10:42:00 +0800
> I find a lot of mistakes using struct platform_driver without owner.
> So I pick up some of them including usb and net modules
Instead of doing it this way, which is obviously error prone and
easy to forget, make platform_driver_register() be a macro which
sets the module owner field then calls the real __platform_driver_register().
Dear David Miller,
On Mon, 20 May 2013 23:26:19 -0700 (PDT), David Miller wrote:
> From: Libo Chen <[email protected]>
> Date: Tue, 21 May 2013 10:42:00 +0800
>
> > I find a lot of mistakes using struct platform_driver without owner.
> > So I pick up some of them including usb and net modules
>
> Instead of doing it this way, which is obviously error prone and
> easy to forget, make platform_driver_register() be a macro which
> sets the module owner field then calls the real
> __platform_driver_register().
Or, maybe make the existing module_platform_driver() macro do this?
Best regards,
Thomas
--
Thomas Petazzoni, Free Electrons
Kernel, drivers, real-time and embedded Linux
development, consulting, training and support.
http://free-electrons.com
From: Thomas Petazzoni <[email protected]>
Date: Tue, 21 May 2013 08:41:08 +0200
> Dear David Miller,
>
> On Mon, 20 May 2013 23:26:19 -0700 (PDT), David Miller wrote:
>> From: Libo Chen <[email protected]>
>> Date: Tue, 21 May 2013 10:42:00 +0800
>>
>> > I find a lot of mistakes using struct platform_driver without owner.
>> > So I pick up some of them including usb and net modules
>>
>> Instead of doing it this way, which is obviously error prone and
>> easy to forget, make platform_driver_register() be a macro which
>> sets the module owner field then calls the real
>> __platform_driver_register().
>
> Or, maybe make the existing module_platform_driver() macro do this?
Even better.
On 05/21/2013 02:41 PM, Thomas Petazzoni wrote:
> Dear David Miller,
>
> On Mon, 20 May 2013 23:26:19 -0700 (PDT), David Miller wrote:
>> From: Libo Chen <[email protected]>
>> Date: Tue, 21 May 2013 10:42:00 +0800
>>
>>> I find a lot of mistakes using struct platform_driver without owner.
>>> So I pick up some of them including usb and net modules
>>
>> Instead of doing it this way, which is obviously error prone and
>> easy to forget, make platform_driver_register() be a macro which
>> sets the module owner field then calls the real
>> __platform_driver_register().
>
> Or, maybe make the existing module_platform_driver() macro do this?
But not all the modules use module_platform_driver() macro to replace the module init/exit.
Thanks,
Gu
>
> Best regards,
>
> Thomas
On 2013/5/21 16:00, Gu Zheng wrote:
> On 05/21/2013 02:41 PM, Thomas Petazzoni wrote:
>
>> Dear David Miller,
>>
>> On Mon, 20 May 2013 23:26:19 -0700 (PDT), David Miller wrote:
>>> From: Libo Chen <[email protected]>
>>> Date: Tue, 21 May 2013 10:42:00 +0800
>>>
>>>> I find a lot of mistakes using struct platform_driver without owner.
>>>> So I pick up some of them including usb and net modules
>>>
>>> Instead of doing it this way, which is obviously error prone and
>>> easy to forget, make platform_driver_register() be a macro which
>>> sets the module owner field then calls the real
>>> __platform_driver_register().
>>
>> Or, maybe make the existing module_platform_driver() macro do this?
>
>
> But not all the modules use module_platform_driver() macro to replace the module init/exit.
>
> Thanks,
> Gu
>
yes, there are many drivers register platform_driver by platform_driver_register manually.
make both platform_driver_register() and module_platform_driver() to check and set the module owner field?
>>
>> Best regards,
>>
>> Thomas
>
>
>
> .
>
On 05/21/2013 04:26 PM, Libo Chen wrote:
> On 2013/5/21 16:00, Gu Zheng wrote:
>> On 05/21/2013 02:41 PM, Thomas Petazzoni wrote:
>>
>>> Dear David Miller,
>>>
>>> On Mon, 20 May 2013 23:26:19 -0700 (PDT), David Miller wrote:
>>>> From: Libo Chen <[email protected]>
>>>> Date: Tue, 21 May 2013 10:42:00 +0800
>>>>
>>>>> I find a lot of mistakes using struct platform_driver without owner.
>>>>> So I pick up some of them including usb and net modules
>>>>
>>>> Instead of doing it this way, which is obviously error prone and
>>>> easy to forget, make platform_driver_register() be a macro which
>>>> sets the module owner field then calls the real
>>>> __platform_driver_register().
>>>
>>> Or, maybe make the existing module_platform_driver() macro do this?
>>
>>
>> But not all the modules use module_platform_driver() macro to replace the module init/exit.
>>
>> Thanks,
>> Gu
>>
>
> yes, there are many drivers register platform_driver by platform_driver_register manually.
>
> make both platform_driver_register() and module_platform_driver() to check and set the module owner field?
No, module_platform_driver() will call platform_driver_register() to register platform_driver, just do it in
platform_driver_register() is enough.
As David mentioned, making platform_driver_register() be a macro and sets the module owner field in it, seems
a good way.
Thanks,
Gu
>
>
>
>>>
>>> Best regards,
>>>
>>> Thomas
>>
>>
>>
>> .
>>
>
>
> --
> To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
> the body of a message to [email protected]
> More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
> Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
>
Dear Gu Zheng,
On Tue, 21 May 2013 16:00:19 +0800, Gu Zheng wrote:
> > Or, maybe make the existing module_platform_driver() macro do this?
>
> But not all the modules use module_platform_driver() macro to replace the module init/exit.
Then maybe it's a good opportunity to convert those ones to use
module_platform_driver() ?
Thomas
--
Thomas Petazzoni, Free Electrons
Kernel, drivers, real-time and embedded Linux
development, consulting, training and support.
http://free-electrons.com
On 2013/5/21 17:06, Thomas Petazzoni wrote:
> Dear Gu Zheng,
>
> On Tue, 21 May 2013 16:00:19 +0800, Gu Zheng wrote:
>
>>> Or, maybe make the existing module_platform_driver() macro do this?
>>
>> But not all the modules use module_platform_driver() macro to replace the module init/exit.
>
> Then maybe it's a good opportunity to convert those ones to use
> module_platform_driver() ?
>
> Thomas
>
In my opinion, not all modules can use module_platform_driver() macro to replace the module init/exit easily, like us3mc_init.
Furthermore this work will touch various platforms and architectures, I am worried it is hard to *test* (compile and boot).
What do you think?
On Tue, May 21, 2013 at 10:42:00AM +0800, Libo Chen wrote:
> I find a lot of mistakes using struct platform_driver without owner.
> So I pick up some of them including usb and net modules
Like others said, make the function call a macro that sets the module
owner in it, like all of the other major subsystem registration calls do
(usb_drivers, pci_drivers, etc.)
thanks,
greg k-h
On 05/21/2013 05:42 PM, Libo Chen wrote:
> On 2013/5/21 17:06, Thomas Petazzoni wrote:
>> Dear Gu Zheng,
>>
>> On Tue, 21 May 2013 16:00:19 +0800, Gu Zheng wrote:
>>
>>>> Or, maybe make the existing module_platform_driver() macro do this?
>>>
>>> But not all the modules use module_platform_driver() macro to replace the module init/exit.
>>
>> Then maybe it's a good opportunity to convert those ones to use
>> module_platform_driver() ?
>>
>> Thomas
>>
>
> In my opinion, not all modules can use module_platform_driver() macro to replace the module init/exit easily, like us3mc_init.
>
> Furthermore this work will touch various platforms and architectures, I am worried it is hard to *test* (compile and boot).
Agree. I stick to the way that David mentioned.
Thanks,
Gu
>
> What do you think?
>
>