On Thu, 2020-04-16 at 08:30 +0200, Greg KH wrote: > 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.
Again, reporting a version string is part of the UIO API. It might not be a good API, but if it's left as NULL the registration will fail. -Scott
