Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 23.128.96.18 as permitted sender) client-ip=23.128.96.18;
Date:   Thu, 16 Apr 2020 08:30:34 +0200
From:   Greg KH <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org>
To:     Scott Wood <oss@buserror.net>
Cc:     Christophe Leroy <christophe.leroy@c-s.fr>,
        Wang Wenhu <wenhu.wang@vivo.com>, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
        linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org, kernel@vivo.com,
        Michael Ellerman <mpe@ellerman.id.au>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2,5/5] drivers: uio: new driver for fsl_85xx_cache_sram
Message-ID: <20200416063034.GB299193@kroah.com>
References: <20200415124929.GA3265842@kroah.com>
 <20200415152442.122873-1-wenhu.wang@vivo.com>
 <20200415152442.122873-6-wenhu.wang@vivo.com>
 <37b6b890-e537-7424-6b26-04565681f40a@c-s.fr>
 <f2a1f91f92c0fe4bce46c28222dea355d96e2090.camel@buserror.net>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <f2a1f91f92c0fe4bce46c28222dea355d96e2090.camel@buserror.net>
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

On Wed, Apr 15, 2020 at 02:27:51PM -0500, Scott Wood wrote:
> > > +		dev_err(&pdev->dev, "error no valid uio-map configured\n");
> > > +		ret = -EINVAL;
> > > +		goto err_info_free_internel;
> > > +	}
> > > +
> > > +	info->version = "0.1.0";
> > 
> > Could you define some DRIVER_VERSION in the top of the file next to 
> > DRIVER_NAME instead of hard coding in the middle on a function ?
> 
> That's what v1 had, and Greg KH said to remove it.  I'm guessing that he
> thought it was the common-but-pointless practice of having the driver print a
> version number that never gets updated, rather than something the UIO API
> (unfortunately, compared to a feature query interface) expects.  That said,
> I'm not sure what the value is of making it a macro since it should only be
> used once, that use is self documenting, it isn't tunable, etc.  Though if
> this isn't a macro, UIO_NAME also shouldn't be (and if it is made a macro
> again, it should be UIO_VERSION, not DRIVER_VERSION).
> 
> Does this really need a three-part version scheme?  What's wrong with a
> version of "1", to be changed to "2" in the hopefully-unlikely event that the
> userspace API changes?  Assuming UIO is used for this at all, which doesn't
> seem like a great fit to me.

No driver version numbers at all please, they do not make any sense when
the driver is included in the kernel tree.

greg k-h