On Tue, Oct 04, 2011 at 12:18:18PM -0600, Grant Likely wrote:
> On Mon, Sep 26, 2011 at 10:38:58AM +0100, Mark Brown wrote:
> > No, that's not helpful. The issue isn't the device probe code itself,
> > the issue is things like module unload not doing what they're supposed
> > to do and leaving the device lying around or something - there's rather
> > more going on than just the plain API call.
> Then lets fix the core code. I see this pattern show up again and
> again of extra boilerplate going around
> platform_driver_{register,unregister}(). That says to me that there
> either needs to be a new helper, or the core code needs to be made
> more verbose.
I'd go with the latter, it's pretty much the approach the subsystems I
help maintain have been taking. In fast paths it's a bit different but
in slow paths it tends to be helpful to know why things just fell over.
> In fact, I've been considering adding a macro for
> {platform,i2c,spi,...}_drivers that does all the module boilerplate
> for the common case of only registering a driver at init time.
> Something like:
> #define module_platform_driver(__driver) \
> int __driver##_init(void) \
> { \
> return platform_driver_register(&(__driver)); \
> } \
> module_init(__driver##_init); \
> void ##__driver##_exit(void) \
> { \
> platform_driver_unregister(&(__driver)); \
> } \
> module_exit(##__driver##_exit);
> It's not a lot of code, but I dislike how much boilerplate every
> single driver has to use if it doesn't do anything special.
Yeah, this sort of stuff would be helpful - there's quite a bit of
boilerplate you end up having to write to get drivers going.
_______________________________________________
linaro-dev mailing list
linaro-dev@lists.linaro.org
http://lists.linaro.org/mailman/listinfo/linaro-dev
