Re: [PATCH v6 13/13] Documentation: clarify firmware_class provenance and why we can't rename the module

[Andres Rodriguez <andresx7@gmail.com>]

On 2018-05-08 02:12 PM, Luis R. Rodriguez wrote:
> Clarify the provenance of the firmware loader firmware_class module name
> and why we cannot rename the module in the future.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Luis R. Rodriguez <mcgrof@kernel.org>
> ---
>   .../driver-api/firmware/fallback-mechanisms.rst          | 9 ++++++---
>   1 file changed, 6 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)
> 
> diff --git a/Documentation/driver-api/firmware/fallback-mechanisms.rst b/Documentation/driver-api/firmware/fallback-mechanisms.rst
> index a39323ef7d29..a8047be4a96e 100644
> --- a/Documentation/driver-api/firmware/fallback-mechanisms.rst
> +++ b/Documentation/driver-api/firmware/fallback-mechanisms.rst
> @@ -72,9 +72,12 @@ the firmware requested, and establishes it in the device hierarchy by
>   associating the device used to make the request as the device's parent.
>   The sysfs directory's file attributes are defined and controlled through
>   the new device's class (firmware_class) and group (fw_dev_attr_groups).
> -This is actually where the original firmware_class.c file name comes from,
> -as originally the only firmware loading mechanism available was the
> -mechanism we now use as a fallback mechanism.
> +This is actually where the original firmware_class module name came from,
> +given that originally the only firmware loading mechanism available was the
> +mechanism we now use as a fallback mechanism, which which registers a

Just a tiny repeated word here, "which which".

-Andres


> +struct class firmware_class. Because the attributes exposed are part of the
> +module name, the module name firmware_class cannot be renamed in the future, to
> +ensure backward compatibilty with old userspace.
>   
>   To load firmware using the sysfs interface we expose a loading indicator,
>   and a file upload firmware into:
>