Messages in this thread | | | Date | Thu, 7 Nov 2019 12:48:20 +0000 | From | Will Deacon <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH 7/7] iommu/arm-smmu: Allow building as a module |
| |
Hi Isaac,
On Mon, Nov 04, 2019 at 11:34:00AM -0800, Isaac J. Manjarres wrote: > On Wed, Oct 30, 2019 at 02:51:12PM +0000, Will Deacon wrote: > > diff --git a/drivers/iommu/arm-smmu-impl.c b/drivers/iommu/arm-smmu-impl.c > > index 5c87a38620c4..2f82d40317d6 100644 > > --- a/drivers/iommu/arm-smmu-impl.c > > +++ b/drivers/iommu/arm-smmu-impl.c > > @@ -5,6 +5,7 @@ > > #define pr_fmt(fmt) "arm-smmu: " fmt > > > > #include <linux/bitfield.h> > > +#include <linux/module.h> > > #include <linux/of.h> > > > > #include "arm-smmu.h" > > @@ -172,3 +173,8 @@ struct arm_smmu_device *arm_smmu_impl_init(struct arm_smmu_device *smmu) > > > > return smmu; > > } > > +EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL(arm_smmu_impl_init); > > + > > +MODULE_DESCRIPTION("IOMMU quirks for ARM architected SMMU implementations"); > > +MODULE_AUTHOR("Robin Murphy <robin.murphy@arm.com>"); > > +MODULE_LICENSE("GPL v2"); > > A minor comment: I was curious about why arm-smmu.c and arm-smmu-impl.c > were being compiled as two separate modules, as opposed to combining > them into one module? The latter approach seemed more appropriate, given > that arm-smmu-impl doesn't offer much as a module on its own. Thoughts?
Yes, you're right. The simple answer is that I couldn't come up with a good name for the combined module, since "arm-smmu" is already taken by the core part of the driver and I don't want to rename that file. Looking at what a few other drivers do, it seems that "arm-smmu-mod" might be the best bet so I'll incorporate that change for v2 and put you on cc.
Thanks!
Will
| |