On Wed, 12 Jan 2022 at 12:43, Pali Rohár <pali@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> On Wednesday 12 January 2022 12:18:58 Jérôme Pouiller wrote:
> > On Wednesday 12 January 2022 11:58:59 CET Pali Rohár wrote:
> > > On Tuesday 11 January 2022 18:14:08 Jerome Pouiller wrote:
> > > > +static const struct sdio_device_id wfx_sdio_ids[] = {
> > > > + { SDIO_DEVICE(SDIO_VENDOR_ID_SILABS, SDIO_DEVICE_ID_SILABS_WF200) },
> > > > + { },
> > > > +};
> > >
> > > Hello! Is this table still required?
> >
> > As far as I understand, if the driver does not provide an id_table, the
> > probe function won't be never called (see sdio_match_device()).
> >
> > Since, we rely on the device tree, we could replace SDIO_VENDOR_ID_SILABS
> > and SDIO_DEVICE_ID_SILABS_WF200 by SDIO_ANY_ID. However, it does not hurt
> > to add an extra filter here.
>
> Now when this particular id is not required, I'm thinking if it is still
> required and it is a good idea to define these SDIO_VENDOR_ID_SILABS
> macros into kernel include files. As it would mean that other broken
> SDIO devices could define these bogus numbers too... And having them in
> common kernel includes files can cause issues... e.g. other developers
> could think that it is correct to use them as they are defined in common
> header files. But as these numbers are not reliable (other broken cards
> may have same ids as wf200) and their usage may cause issues in future.
>
> Ulf, any opinion?
The sdio_match_device() is what is being used to match the device to
its sdio_driver, which is being called from the sdio_bus_type's
->match() callback.
In regards to the DT compatible strings from a drivers'
.of_match_table, that is currently left to be matched by the sdio
driver's ->probe() function internally, by calling
of_driver_match_device().
In other words, I think what Jerome has suggested here seems
reasonable to me. Matching on "SDIO_ANY_ID" would work too, but I
think it's better with a poor filter like SDIO_VENDOR_ID_SILABS*,
rather than none.
An entirely different and new approach would be to extend
sdio_match_device() to call of_driver_match_device() too. However, in
that case we would also need to add a new corresponding ->probe()
callback for the sdio_driver, as the current one takes a const struct
sdio_device_id, which doesn't work when matching on DT compatibles.
>
> Btw, is there any project which maintains SDIO ids, like there is
> pci-ids.ucw.cz for PCI or www.linux-usb.org/usb-ids.html for USB?
>
> > > > +MODULE_DEVICE_TABLE(sdio, wfx_sdio_ids);
> > > > +
> > > > +struct sdio_driver wfx_sdio_driver = {
> > > > + .name = "wfx-sdio",
> > > > + .id_table = wfx_sdio_ids,
> > > > + .probe = wfx_sdio_probe,
> > > > + .remove = wfx_sdio_remove,
> > > > + .drv = {
> > > > + .owner = THIS_MODULE,
> > > > + .of_match_table = wfx_sdio_of_match,
> > > > + }
> > > > +};
> > > > --
> > > > 2.34.1
> > > >
> > >
> >
> >
> > --
> > Jérôme Pouiller
Kind regards
Uffe
