Re: [PATCH 2/3] PWM: vt8500: Update vt8500 PWM driver support

[Thierry Reding <thierry.reding@avionic-design.de>]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1819 bytes --]

On Mon, Oct 22, 2012 at 11:50:21AM +0000, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
> On Monday 22 October 2012, Thierry Reding wrote:
> > On Mon, Oct 22, 2012 at 07:51:52PM +1300, Tony Prisk wrote:
> > > Replies to your comments inline:
> > > 
> > > On Mon, 2012-10-22 at 08:34 +0200, Thierry Reding wrote:
> > > ...
> > > > > -static int __devinit pwm_probe(struct platform_device *pdev)
> > > > > +static const struct of_device_id vt8500_pwm_dt_ids[] = {
> > > > > + { .compatible = "via,vt8500-pwm", },
> > > > > + { /* Sentinel */ }
> > > > > +};
> > > > > +
> > > > > +static int __devinit vt8500_pwm_probe(struct platform_device *pdev)
> > > > 
> > > > Since you're changing this line anyway, maybe you should drop __devinit
> > > > (and __devexit for the .remove() callback). HOTPLUG is always enabled
> > > > nowadays and will go away eventually, in which case these will need to
> > > > be removed anyway.
> > > 
> > > Will do. I must say the inconstancy among comments is rather
> > > frustrating. In another patch I sent out a few days ago (completely
> > > unrelated to this), I told to add __devexit to a remove() function :\
> > 
> > This is a rather recent development, so maybe not everyone knows about
> > it yet. You can look at the following commit for the details:
> > 
> >         45f035ab9b8f45aaf1eb2213218b7e9c14af3fc2
> > 
> > It's been in linux-next for about 6 weeks and has also gone into
> > 3.7-rc1.
> 
> As long as we get build warnings for leaving out the __devinit/__devexit
> annotations, I would generally recommend putting them in. If we do a
> patch to remove all of them, a couple extra instances will not cause
> any more troubles than we already have.

I've never seen any build warnings for leaving __devinit/__devexit out.
Where does that happen?

Thierry

[-- Attachment #2: Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 836 bytes --]