From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: pebolle@tiscali.nl (Paul Bolle) Date: Thu, 05 Mar 2015 11:02:37 +0100 Subject: [PATCH v1 5/6] eeprom: qfprom: Add Qualcomm QFPROM support. In-Reply-To: <1425548783-13110-1-git-send-email-srinivas.kandagatla@linaro.org> References: <1425548685-12887-1-git-send-email-srinivas.kandagatla@linaro.org> <1425548783-13110-1-git-send-email-srinivas.kandagatla@linaro.org> Message-ID: <1425549757.24292.204.camel@x220> To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org List-Id: linux-arm-kernel.lists.infradead.org On Thu, 2015-03-05 at 09:46 +0000, Srinivas Kandagatla wrote: > diff --git a/drivers/eeprom/Kconfig b/drivers/eeprom/Kconfig > index bff8ecb..65325c7 100644 > --- a/drivers/eeprom/Kconfig > +++ b/drivers/eeprom/Kconfig > @@ -28,4 +28,11 @@ config EEPROM_SUNXI_SID > This driver can also be built as a module. If so, the module > will be called sunxi_sid. > > +config QCOM_QFPROM > + tristate "QCOM QFPROM Support" > + depends on EEPROM Make this one tab, please. > + select REGMAP_MMIO > + help > + Say y here to enable QFPROM support. The QFPROM provides access > + functions for QFPROM data to rest of the drivers via eeprom interface. And this one tab and two spaces, please. All utterly trivial, of course, but I found a less trivial problem with this patch, so I included these two comments anyway. > endif > diff --git a/drivers/eeprom/Makefile b/drivers/eeprom/Makefile > index 661422c..f99c824 100644 > --- a/drivers/eeprom/Makefile > +++ b/drivers/eeprom/Makefile > @@ -8,3 +8,4 @@ obj-$(CONFIG_EEPROM) += core.o > > # Devices > obj-$(CONFIG_EEPROM_SUNXI_SID) += eeprom-sunxi-sid.o > +obj-$(CONFIG_QCOM_QFPROM) += qfprom.o > diff --git a/drivers/eeprom/qfprom.c b/drivers/eeprom/qfprom.c > new file mode 100644 > index 0000000..371a8c0 > --- /dev/null > +++ b/drivers/eeprom/qfprom.c > @@ -0,0 +1,74 @@ > +#include > +#include > +#include > +#include > +#include > +#include [...] > +MODULE_LICENSE("GPL2"); This will taint the kernel on module load. I guess you meant MODULE_LICENSE("GPL v2"); but there's no comment with some lines about the license at the top of this file, so I can't be sure. Paul Bolle (Chances are that by the end of this week everybody is so tired of messages like this that people actually check this stuff before submitting, and there's no need to review this anymore for the rest of this year. That would be mission accomplished, I guess.)