[PATCH 1/2] powerpc: export ppc_tb_freq so that modules can reference it

Josh Boyer jwboyer at gmail.com
Sun Sep 19 04:22:12 EST 2010

On Sat, Sep 18, 2010 at 1:55 PM, Tabi Timur-B04825 <B04825 at freescale.com> wrote:
> Josh Boyer wrote:
>> This is a new symbol being exported, not
>> one that has been exported for years.
> Except that Ben says that I should change ppc_proc_freq from EXPORT_SYMBOL
> to
> EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL as well.  In a sense, we're in a catch-22.  We have three
> choices:
> 1. We *arbitrarily* change ppc_proc_freq from EXPORT_SYMBOL to
> EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL, so that the two symbols are exported the same way
> 2. We GPL-export only ppc_tb_freq and leave ppc_proc_freq as-is, but then it
> looks dumb.

I dunno.  I don't think it looks dumb.  It could mean nothing more
than we were paying closer attention this time.

> 3. We export ppc_tb_freq the same way we're exporting ppc_proc_freq,
> providing the most options and maintaining consistency.
> I just don't see how options #1 or #2 are better than #3, and so far the
> only
> explanations I've heard are along the lines of "we just like it that way".

Now I think I've been a bit more detailed than that.  I at least
explained why I prefer it that way.  If you disagree, that's fine but
don't make me sound like some kind of petulant child.

> Obviously, Linus thinks it's okay to allow some non-GPL modules, otherwise
> he
> would have long ago changed all EXPORT_SYMBOLs to EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL.  I'm
> just capitalizing on that mindset.

Capitalizing?  The patch you posted that uses this symbol is for a GPL
driver so you gain or lose nothing by having this symbol be
EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL.  Are you somehow advocating and getting some sort
of gain by allowing non-GPL modules?  If so, I find that unfortunate.
If not, then I guess I don't understand what you mean by capitalizing.


More information about the Linuxppc-dev mailing list