From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1038020AbdDUKjj (ORCPT ); Fri, 21 Apr 2017 06:39:39 -0400 Received: from mx2.suse.de ([195.135.220.15]:46515 "EHLO mx1.suse.de" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-FAIL) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1753909AbdDUKjd (ORCPT ); Fri, 21 Apr 2017 06:39:33 -0400 Date: Fri, 21 Apr 2017 12:39:30 +0200 Message-ID: From: Takashi Iwai To: Jose Abreu Cc: Mark Brown , Lubomir Rintel , , , Arnd Bergmann Subject: Re: [alsa-devel] [PATCH] ASoC: dwc: disallow building designware_pcm as a module In-Reply-To: <376c5933-9321-5399-74c7-6fd4943fab3d@synopsys.com> References: <20170418105954.23368-1-lkundrak@v3.sk> <20170418151834.c7e5fivmgn73sbwd@sirena.org.uk> <1492532010.28092.12.camel@v3.sk> <20170418171519.csiftftd434psyn5@sirena.org.uk> <2e39b000-bf25-6447-b53b-047401041f4e@synopsys.com> <1492618461.28092.18.camel@v3.sk> <03a3fbbb-7221-f4ee-5b1b-8fff518ea82c@synopsys.com> <20170420194646.qcpu7w3acjyfmeu5@sirena.org.uk> <376c5933-9321-5399-74c7-6fd4943fab3d@synopsys.com> User-Agent: Wanderlust/2.15.9 (Almost Unreal) SEMI/1.14.6 (Maruoka) FLIM/1.14.9 (=?UTF-8?B?R29qxY0=?=) APEL/10.8 Emacs/25.1 (x86_64-suse-linux-gnu) MULE/6.0 (HANACHIRUSATO) MIME-Version: 1.0 (generated by SEMI 1.14.6 - "Maruoka") Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Fri, 21 Apr 2017 12:34:00 +0200, Jose Abreu wrote: > > Hi, > > > On 20-04-2017 21:24, Takashi Iwai wrote: > > So, I think Lubomir's change is right. But the patch subject and > > description should be rephrased. > > > > One thing I don't like is the rename of the file. But in this > > particular case, it's unavoidable unless we rename the module name. > > > > Maybe rename to "dwc-i2s.c" and "dwc-pcm.c" (as the folder is > called "dwc") and let the module still be called "designware-i2s"? Lubomir's patch keeps the module name intact. My point is that rename of a file isn't nice to look at the git commit history, so it's better to be avoided as much as possible. But in this case, it looks unavoidable. Takashi