> I don't see an issue with still using a struct since we are using the
> same list across multiple machines, but this makes me wonder if maybe
> we should refactor this into another layer, having the ids at a top
> structure and then the speaker matches a layer down. E.g.
>
> struct snd_soc_acpi_mach snd_soc_acpi_intel_adl_machines[] = {
> {
> .drv_name = "adl_mx98373_rt5682",
> .machine_quirk = snd_soc_acpi_codec_list,
> .quirk_data = &adl_max98373_amp,
> },
> {
> .drv_name = "adl_mx98357_rt5682",
> .machine_quirk = snd_soc_acpi_codec_list,
> .quirk_data = &adl_max98357a_amp,
> },
> {
> .drv_name = "adl_mx98360_rt5682",
> .machine_quirk = snd_soc_acpi_codec_list,
> .quirk_data = &adl_max98360a_amp,
> }
> }
>
> struct machine_driver adl_rt5682_driver_match {
> .id = { "10EC5682", "RTL5682" }
> .instances = &adl_rt5682_machines
> }
We probably need to experiment various options, on one hand the proposal
removes duplication but in a lot of cases outside of Chromebooks/rt5640
there is none, so that table rework adds an indirection with no real
benefit.
