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:   Fri, 11 Jun 2021 10:55:09 +0200
From:   Greg KH <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org>
To:     Srinivas Kandagatla <srinivas.kandagatla@linaro.org>
Cc:     linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Bixuan Cui <cuibixuan@huawei.com>,
        Hulk Robot <hulkci@huawei.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/9] nvmem: sprd: Add missing MODULE_DEVICE_TABLE
Message-ID: <YMMk7dr1dKyO1JyZ@kroah.com>
References: <20210611083348.20170-1-srinivas.kandagatla@linaro.org>
 <20210611083348.20170-2-srinivas.kandagatla@linaro.org>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20210611083348.20170-2-srinivas.kandagatla@linaro.org>
Precedence: bulk

On Fri, Jun 11, 2021 at 09:33:40AM +0100, Srinivas Kandagatla wrote:
> From: Bixuan Cui <cuibixuan@huawei.com>
> 
> This patch adds missing MODULE_DEVICE_TABLE definition which generates
> correct modalias for automatic loading of this driver when it is built
> as an external module.
> 
> Fixes: 096030e7f449 ("nvmem: sprd: Add Spreadtrum SoCs eFuse support")
> Reported-by: Hulk Robot <hulkci@huawei.com>
> Signed-off-by: Bixuan Cui <cuibixuan@huawei.com>
> Signed-off-by: Srinivas Kandagatla <srinivas.kandagatla@linaro.org>
> ---
>  drivers/nvmem/sprd-efuse.c | 1 +
>  1 file changed, 1 insertion(+)
> 
> diff --git a/drivers/nvmem/sprd-efuse.c b/drivers/nvmem/sprd-efuse.c
> index 59523245db8a..5d394559edf2 100644
> --- a/drivers/nvmem/sprd-efuse.c
> +++ b/drivers/nvmem/sprd-efuse.c
> @@ -425,6 +425,7 @@ static const struct of_device_id sprd_efuse_of_match[] = {
>  	{ .compatible = "sprd,ums312-efuse", .data = &ums312_data },
>  	{ }
>  };
> +MODULE_DEVICE_TABLE(of, sprd_efuse_of_match);

Why is this needed?  Do you have reports of this module not being
properly auto-loaded?

I have been rejecting these types of patches from the "Hulk Robot" as
they were just blindly going through the tree and not determining if
this actually is a thing that needed to be fixed.

Also, if it is a real fix, shouldn't it also go to the stable kernel
trees?  If so, you didn't mark it as such :(

thanks,

greg k-h