Re: [PATCH] Documentation: i2c: drop unnecessary .owner field in examples

[Wolfram Sang]

On Mon, Jan 15, 2018 at 10:24:52PM +0200, Andy Shevchenko wrote:
> On Mon, Jan 15, 2018 at 2:08 PM, Nicholas Mc Guire <hofrat@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > From: Nicholas Mc Guire <hofrat@xxxxxxxx>
> >
> >  Currently there are a few drivers that still set the .owner
> >  in the i2c_driver structure - all of which are reported by
> >  coccinelle (scripts/coccinelle/api/platform_no_drv_owner.cocci)
> >  and there are no cases that set the .onwer and do not call any
> >  of the functions that set the .owner field anyway in any of the
> >  drivers (checked by a modified coccinelle script based on the
> >  above) so it seems that the examples are no longer valid and
> >  .owner = THIS_MODULE, can be removed here.
> >
> >  While at it an obvious typo (new new) was also fixed.
> 
> AFAIU It is right only in case when someone does this, e.g.
> module_i2c_driver() macro. Otherwise the field is pretty valid and
> must be filled.

It gets filled with i2c_add_driver. module_i2c_driver uses
i2c_add_driver. I was about to suggest to keep the field in the old
driver and describe that it can be removed when using one of
i2c_add_driver or module_i2c_driver.

But then I realised that the kernel tree does not have any such old
drivers anymore and I couldn't even find out-of-tree code via some
search engines (I tried looking for "I2C_CLIENT_INSMOD").

I consider this obsolete and irrelevant these days. It might be good to
simply remove it to not confuse users.

Thoughts?

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: PGP signature