From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org>
Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand
	id S1756775AbbCSRQI (ORCPT <rfc822;w@1wt.eu>);
	Thu, 19 Mar 2015 13:16:08 -0400
Received: from mail-vc0-f182.google.com ([209.85.220.182]:49156 "EHLO
	mail-vc0-f182.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org
	with ESMTP id S1754638AbbCSRQB (ORCPT
	<rfc822;linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>);
	Thu, 19 Mar 2015 13:16:01 -0400
Date: Thu, 19 Mar 2015 13:15:57 -0400
From: Tejun Heo <tj@kernel.org>
To: Borislav Petkov <bp@alien8.de>
Cc: Dmitry Torokhov <dmitry.torokhov@gmail.com>,
        Doug Thompson <dougthompson@xmission.com>,
        linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-edac@vger.kernel.org,
        Mauro Carvalho Chehab <mchehab@osg.samsung.com>,
        Tetsuo Handa <penguin-kernel@I-love.SAKURA.ne.jp>,
        Olof Johansson <olof@lixom.net>,
        Arjan van de Ven <arjan@linux.intel.com>,
        Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org>,
        "Luis R . Rodriguez" <mcgrof@suse.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 3/3] EDAC: amd64_edac: decide if driver can load
 successfully early.
Message-ID: <20150319171557.GS25365@htj.duckdns.org>
References: <20150319155953.GF11715@pd.tnic>
 <20150319161226.GC30732@dtor-ws>
 <20150319162301.GH11715@pd.tnic>
 <20150319163330.GN25365@htj.duckdns.org>
 <20150319164506.GJ11715@pd.tnic>
 <20150319164908.GO25365@htj.duckdns.org>
 <20150319165619.GL11715@pd.tnic>
 <20150319170339.GP25365@htj.duckdns.org>
 <20150319170417.GM11715@pd.tnic>
 <20150319171047.GR25365@htj.duckdns.org>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20150319171047.GR25365@htj.duckdns.org>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.23 (2014-03-12)
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
List-ID: <linux-kernel.vger.kernel.org>
X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org

On Thu, Mar 19, 2015 at 01:10:47PM -0400, Tejun Heo wrote:
> > Scroll back a couple of messages.
> 
> lsmod indicating hardware capability?  Really?  You're just adding
> confusion to the mix.  Stop.

To add a bit, seriously, try to take a step back from your one driver
and look at the larger picture.  The association between module being
loaded or not and hardware capability has been long broken.  It's not
a useable way to communicate anything to userland.  What if the module
is built-in?  What's the difference between your precious one driver
and all others?  How is userland supposed to tell?  This is really you
implementing what should have been in your /etc/rc.local in kernel
driver and is totally unacceptable.  Please don't pull stunts like
this.

-- 
tejun