On 3/9/2015 11:40 AM, Paul Bolle wrote:

Linus Walleij schreef op ma 09-03-2015 om 17:28 [+0100]:

quoted

I think you're right. Or I fear you're right.

But this problem is present in so many drivers that a generic
fixup needs to be done with a script and across an entire subsystem
at once,

Why don't we start with checking for similar cases during review, like
I'm now doing for only a week or two?

quoted

 and besides I'm not sure of these macros disturb so much.

I think they're confusing at best. Ie, when reading the code and the
corresponding Kconfig file one has to wonder: should the Kconfig symbol
actually be tristate or should it stay bool but did someone forget to
delete the module-specific code?

quoted

They are documentation in a sense, albeit a kind of documentation
we used before we had git to record the actual authors of the
code.

They're useful, mostly, for module utilities. Outside that scope they
add information that thousands of files (that can also only be built-in
but do not have these macros) do not have and, apparently, do not need.

I think it depends on how you see it. Based on this logic, then one can
also argue comments in the code will be pre-processed away and are not
needed. They at least serve the same documentation purpose in a way. So
far I haven't seen other people complaining that having these module
based macros in the driver are confusing when the Kconfig has a bool.

Ray

Thanks,


Paul Bolle