Re: drivers/w1/: why is dscore.c not ds9490r.c ?

[Evgeniy Polyakov]

On Mon, 2004-11-22 at 17:51 +0100, Adrian Bunk wrote:
> On Mon, Nov 22, 2004 at 07:25:45PM +0300, Evgeniy Polyakov wrote:
> > On Mon, 2004-11-22 at 14:33 +0100, Adrian Bunk wrote:
> > > On Mon, Nov 22, 2004 at 10:31:12AM +0300, Evgeniy Polyakov wrote:
> > > > On Mon, 2004-11-22 at 01:02, Adrian Bunk wrote:
> > > > > Hi Evgeniy,
> > > > 
> > > > Hello, Adrian.
> > > 
> > > Hi Evgeniy,
> > > 
> > > > > drivers/w1/Makefile in recent 2.6 kernels contains:
> > > > >   obj-$(CONFIG_W1_DS9490)         += ds9490r.o 
> > > > >   ds9490r-objs    := dscore.o
> > > > > 
> > > > > Is there a reason, why dscore.c isn't simply named ds9490r.c ?
> > > > 
> > > > dscore.c is a core function set to work with ds2490 chip.
> > > > ds9490* is built on top of it.
> > > > Any vendor can create it's own w1 bus master using this chip, 
> > > > not ds9490.
> > > 
> > > if it was built on top of it, I'd have expected ds9490r.o to contain 
> > > additional object files.
> > 
> > DS9490 does not have anything except this chip and simple 64bit memory
> > chip,
> > so it is not needed to have any additional code.
> > 
> > > How would a different w1 bus master chip look like in 
> > > drivers/w1/Makefile?
> > 
> > obj-m: proprietary_module.o
> > proprietary_module-objs: dscore.o proprietary_module_init.o
> > 
> > Actually it will live outside the kernel tree, but will require ds2490
> > driver.
> > It could be called ds2490.c but I think dscore is better name.
> 
> Why are you talking about proprietary modules living outside the kernel 
> tree?
> 
> The only interesting case is the one of modules shipped with the kernel.
> And for them, this will break at link time if two such modules are 
> included statically into the kernel.

If we _currently_ do not have any open hw/module that depends on ds2490
core then it does not
mean that tomorrow noone will add it.

> cu
> Adrian
> 
--

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part