Re: [PATCH] cxl: add missing MODULE_DESCRIPTION() macros

[Jeff Johnson]

On 6/6/2024 7:15 AM, Jonathan Cameron wrote:
> On Tue, 4 Jun 2024 13:21:52 -0700
> Jeff Johnson <quic_jjohnson@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> 
>> On 6/4/2024 9:04 AM, Jonathan Cameron wrote:
>>> On Mon, 3 Jun 2024 21:48:53 -0700
>>> Jeff Johnson <quic_jjohnson@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>>   
>>>> make allmodconfig && make W=1 C=1 reports:
>>>> WARNING: modpost: missing MODULE_DESCRIPTION() in drivers/cxl/core/cxl_core.o
>>>> WARNING: modpost: missing MODULE_DESCRIPTION() in drivers/cxl/cxl_pci.o
>>>> WARNING: modpost: missing MODULE_DESCRIPTION() in drivers/cxl/cxl_mem.o
>>>> WARNING: modpost: missing MODULE_DESCRIPTION() in drivers/cxl/cxl_acpi.o
>>>> WARNING: modpost: missing MODULE_DESCRIPTION() in drivers/cxl/cxl_pmem.o
>>>> WARNING: modpost: missing MODULE_DESCRIPTION() in drivers/cxl/cxl_port.o
>>>>
>>>> Add the missing invocations of the MODULE_DESCRIPTION() macro.
>>>>
>>>> Signed-off-by: Jeff Johnson <quic_jjohnson@xxxxxxxxxxx>  
>>>
>>> This has been irritating me as well.  Need to do
>>> drivers/perf/cxl_pmu.c at somepoint as well but given that goes through
>>> a different maintainer makes sense to do separately.
>>>
>>> Only comment I have is that we should probably strive for more consistency
>>> than you currently have.  Always expand CXL or never do, use
>>> colons consistently, use Support everywhere or nowhere.  
>>
>> I'm going through a bunch of these tree-wide, and usually just copy/paste
>> either from existing comments in the .c file or the description of any
>> associated Kconfig item.
>>
>>>> ---
>>>>  drivers/cxl/acpi.c      | 1 +
>>>>  drivers/cxl/core/port.c | 1 +
>>>>  drivers/cxl/mem.c       | 1 +
>>>>  drivers/cxl/pci.c       | 1 +
>>>>  drivers/cxl/pmem.c      | 1 +
>>>>  drivers/cxl/port.c      | 1 +
>>>>  6 files changed, 6 insertions(+)
>>>>
>>>> diff --git a/drivers/cxl/acpi.c b/drivers/cxl/acpi.c
>>>> index 571069863c62..e51315ea4a6a 100644
>>>> --- a/drivers/cxl/acpi.c
>>>> +++ b/drivers/cxl/acpi.c
>>>> @@ -921,6 +921,7 @@ static void __exit cxl_acpi_exit(void)
>>>>  /* load before dax_hmem sees 'Soft Reserved' CXL ranges */
>>>>  subsys_initcall(cxl_acpi_init);
>>>>  module_exit(cxl_acpi_exit);
>>>> +MODULE_DESCRIPTION("CXL ACPI: Platform Support");  
>>
>> From Kconfig:
>> config CXL_ACPI
>>         tristate "CXL ACPI: Platform Support"
> OK
>>
>>>>  MODULE_LICENSE("GPL v2");
>>>>  MODULE_IMPORT_NS(CXL);
>>>>  MODULE_IMPORT_NS(ACPI);
>>>> diff --git a/drivers/cxl/core/port.c b/drivers/cxl/core/port.c
>>>> index 887ed6e358fb..ccaa00cd0321 100644
>>>> --- a/drivers/cxl/core/port.c
>>>> +++ b/drivers/cxl/core/port.c
>>>> @@ -2356,5 +2356,6 @@ static void cxl_core_exit(void)
>>>>  
>>>>  subsys_initcall(cxl_core_init);
>>>>  module_exit(cxl_core_exit);
>>>> +MODULE_DESCRIPTION("CXL (Compute Express Link) Devices Support");  
>>>
>>> Why the expanded version for this one?
>>>
>>> I'm not sure Devices really makes sense here, particularly as it
>>> likely a range of other driver will make some use of this core
>>> functionality over time.  Maybe "CXL core" is sufficient?
>>>   
>>
>> From Kconfig:
>> menuconfig CXL_BUS
>>         tristate "CXL (Compute Express Link) Devices Support"
> 
> Understood, but that is expanded because it's the first use of
> CXL in the make file. Here we have no ordering as across many
> files and resulting modules.
> 
> "CXL: Core Compute Express Link support"
> 
> Would work I think.
> 
>>
>>>>  MODULE_LICENSE("GPL v2");
>>>>  MODULE_IMPORT_NS(CXL);
>>>> diff --git a/drivers/cxl/mem.c b/drivers/cxl/mem.c
>>>> index 0c79d9ce877c..1afb0e78082b 100644
>>>> --- a/drivers/cxl/mem.c
>>>> +++ b/drivers/cxl/mem.c
>>>> @@ -252,6 +252,7 @@ static struct cxl_driver cxl_mem_driver = {
>>>>  
>>>>  module_cxl_driver(cxl_mem_driver);
>>>>  
>>>> +MODULE_DESCRIPTION("CXL: Memory Expansion");  
>>>
>>> Why does this one get a colon? Also no Support at the end?  
>>
>> From Kconfig:
>> config CXL_MEM
>>         tristate "CXL: Memory Expansion"
> 
> OK.  Could add Support but then all code is supporting something,
> so fine to leave it without.
> 
> 
>>
>>>   
>>>>  MODULE_LICENSE("GPL v2");
>>>>  MODULE_IMPORT_NS(CXL);
>>>>  MODULE_ALIAS_CXL(CXL_DEVICE_MEMORY_EXPANDER);
>>>> diff --git a/drivers/cxl/pci.c b/drivers/cxl/pci.c
>>>> index e53646e9f2fb..2c17fcb1b4ee 100644
>>>> --- a/drivers/cxl/pci.c
>>>> +++ b/drivers/cxl/pci.c
>>>> @@ -1066,5 +1066,6 @@ static void __exit cxl_pci_driver_exit(void)
>>>>  
>>>>  module_init(cxl_pci_driver_init);
>>>>  module_exit(cxl_pci_driver_exit);
>>>> +MODULE_DESCRIPTION("CXL PCI manageability");  
>>
>> Kconfig just has:
>> config CXL_PCI
>>         tristate "PCI manageability"
>>
>> I added CXL
> 
> CXL: PCI manageability
> 
> 
>>
>>>>  MODULE_LICENSE("GPL v2");
>>>>  MODULE_IMPORT_NS(CXL);
>>>> diff --git a/drivers/cxl/pmem.c b/drivers/cxl/pmem.c
>>>> index 2ecdaee63021..4ef93da22335 100644
>>>> --- a/drivers/cxl/pmem.c
>>>> +++ b/drivers/cxl/pmem.c
>>>> @@ -453,6 +453,7 @@ static __exit void cxl_pmem_exit(void)
>>>>  	cxl_driver_unregister(&cxl_nvdimm_bridge_driver);
>>>>  }
>>>>  
>>>> +MODULE_DESCRIPTION("CXL PMEM: Persistent Memory Support");  
>>
>> From Kconfig:
>> config CXL_PMEM
>>         tristate "CXL PMEM: Persistent Memory Support"
> OK
>>
>>>>  MODULE_LICENSE("GPL v2");
>>>>  module_init(cxl_pmem_init);
>>>>  module_exit(cxl_pmem_exit);
>>>> diff --git a/drivers/cxl/port.c b/drivers/cxl/port.c
>>>> index 97c21566677a..5ceff1df60db 100644
>>>> --- a/drivers/cxl/port.c
>>>> +++ b/drivers/cxl/port.c
>>>> @@ -209,6 +209,7 @@ static struct cxl_driver cxl_port_driver = {
>>>>  };
>>>>  
>>>>  module_cxl_driver(cxl_port_driver);
>>>> +MODULE_DESCRIPTION("CXL Port Support");  
>>
>> This I just made up from the others since config CXL_PORT doesn't have a menu
>> description or help text and the .c file begins with:
>>  * DOC: cxl port
> 
> "CXL: Port Support"
> 
> Not that informative, but I can't immediately think of better text.
> 
>>
>>
>>>>  MODULE_LICENSE("GPL v2");
>>>>  MODULE_IMPORT_NS(CXL);
>>>>  MODULE_ALIAS_CXL(CXL_DEVICE_PORT);  
>>
>> If you have specific edits you'd like me to make, I'm happy to make them.
>> I have no opinion on the content -- I just want to get rid of the warnings :)
> 
> With the suggestions above it would look more consistent I think.

Thanks for you specific suggestions.
I'll spin a v2 with those.

/jeff