[PATCH v2 3/5] PCI: st: Provide support for the sti PCIe controller
gabriel.fernandez at linaro.org
Tue Mar 17 00:53:04 PDT 2015
Thanks Paul for reviewing.
I'll check to be modular.
On 16 March 2015 at 16:11, Paul Bolle <pebolle at tiscali.nl> wrote:
> On Mon, 2015-03-16 at 15:20 +0100, Gabriel FERNANDEZ wrote:
>> --- a/drivers/pci/host/Kconfig
>> +++ b/drivers/pci/host/Kconfig
>> +config PCI_ST
>> + bool "ST PCIe controller"
> You add a bool Kconfig symbol. A week or two ago I saw some patches fly
> by that - I think - allowed PCIe controllers to be built modular.
>> + depends on ARCH_STI || (ARM && COMPILE_TEST)
>> + select PCIE_DW
>> + help
>> + Enable PCIe controller support on ST Socs. This controller is based
>> + on Designware hardware and therefore the driver re-uses the
>> + Designware core functions to implement the driver.
>> --- a/drivers/pci/host/Makefile
>> +++ b/drivers/pci/host/Makefile
>> +obj-$(CONFIG_PCI_ST) += pci-st.o
> If you keep that symbol bool this objectfile will never be part of a
>> diff --git a/drivers/pci/host/pci-st.c b/drivers/pci/host/pci-st.c
>> new file mode 100644
>> index 0000000..470000d
>> --- /dev/null
>> +++ b/drivers/pci/host/pci-st.c
>> +#include <linux/module.h>
> For built-in code this include is, probably, not needed.
>> +MODULE_DEVICE_TABLE(of, st_pcie_of_match);
> For built-in code that macro will always be preprocessed away.
>> +/* ST PCIe driver does not allow module unload */
>> +static int __init pcie_init(void)
>> + return platform_driver_probe(&st_pcie_driver, st_pcie_probe);
> I think the module unload comment is a bit odd for built-in only code.
>> +MODULE_AUTHOR("Fabrice Gasnier <fabrice.gasnier at st.com>");
>> +MODULE_DESCRIPTION("PCI express Driver for ST SoCs");
>> +MODULE_LICENSE("GPL v2");
> These three macros will be, basically, always preprocessed away as long
> as this code can't be built to be modular.
> Paul Bolle
More information about the linux-arm-kernel