On Friday 17 August 2007, Atsushi Nemoto wrote: > > > My preferred style for such patches puts the MODULE_ALIAS up > > near the strange driver name, so it's more clear what's going > > on. Putting all the MODULE_*() stuff at the end of the file > > gets confusing in this case. > > OK, then I should update my patches anyway ;)
I wasn't going to be too picky here, but if you volunteer to make things even better, I'll be happy! :) > Which do you prefer, MODULE_ALIAS or change some strings? > > I guess there are some out-of-tree users of this driver, but fixing > them is really trivial, so I don't think this is a big compatibility > problem. If you're willing to fix all the in-tree users, I'd think not needing MODULE_ALIAS is best in the long term. For these I2C drivers, the conversion to support "new style" driver binding is new in 2.6.23, yes? If so, I don't see any real downside to making the driver and module names match. _ Dave - 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/
