Re: [PATCH net-next] net: dsa: microchip: drop unneeded MODULE_ALIAS

[Krzysztof Kozlowski]

On 15/04/2024 12:20, Vladimir Oltean wrote:
> On Sun, Apr 14, 2024 at 05:49:29PM +0200, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote:
>> The ID table already has respective entry and MODULE_DEVICE_TABLE and
>> creates proper alias for SPI driver.  Having another MODULE_ALIAS causes
>> the alias to be duplicated.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzk@xxxxxxxxxx>
>> ---
>>  drivers/net/dsa/microchip/ksz_spi.c | 7 -------
>>  1 file changed, 7 deletions(-)
>>
>> diff --git a/drivers/net/dsa/microchip/ksz_spi.c b/drivers/net/dsa/microchip/ksz_spi.c
>> index c8166fb440ab..cdc4add5f5b5 100644
>> --- a/drivers/net/dsa/microchip/ksz_spi.c
>> +++ b/drivers/net/dsa/microchip/ksz_spi.c
>> @@ -233,13 +233,6 @@ static struct spi_driver ksz_spi_driver = {
>>  
>>  module_spi_driver(ksz_spi_driver);
>>  
>> -MODULE_ALIAS("spi:ksz9477");
>> -MODULE_ALIAS("spi:ksz9896");
>> -MODULE_ALIAS("spi:ksz9897");
>> -MODULE_ALIAS("spi:ksz9893");
>> -MODULE_ALIAS("spi:ksz9563");
>> -MODULE_ALIAS("spi:ksz8563");
>> -MODULE_ALIAS("spi:ksz9567");
>>  MODULE_ALIAS("spi:lan937x");
> 
> The spi:lan937x alias is bogus, right? LAN937x switches are covered by
> these entries in ksz_spi_ids[]:
> 
> 	{ "lan9370" },
> 	{ "lan9371" },
> 	{ "lan9372" },
> 	{ "lan9373" },
> 	{ "lan9374" },

No, it is not. That's a valid alias. What's bogus about it? Someone
wanted to load the module by such alias.

Best regards,
Krzysztof