On Mon, 14 Aug 2023 15:12:24 +0200
Geert Uytterhoeven <geert@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> Hi Biju,
>
> On Fri, Aug 11, 2023 at 4:46 PM Biju Das <biju.das.jz@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > > Subject: Re: [PATCH v7 0/4] Extend device_get_match_data() to struct
> > > bus_type
> > >
> > > On Fri, Aug 11, 2023 at 01:27:36PM +0000, Biju Das wrote:
> > > > > On Thu, Aug 10, 2023 at 09:05:10AM +0000, Biju Das wrote:
> > >
> > > ...
> > >
> > > > > I'm good with this approach, but make sure you checked the whole
> > > > > kernel source tree for a such.
> > > >
> > > > Checking against 16 is too short I guess??
> > > >
> > > > drivers/iio/imu/inv_mpu6050/inv_mpu_iio.h has 18 enums.
> > >
> > > So, what does prevent us from moving that tables to use pointers?
> >
> > I think that will lead to ABI breakage(client->name vs id->name)
> >
> > match = device_get_match_data(&client->dev);
> > if (match) {
> > chip_type = (uintptr_t)match;
> > name = client->name;
> > } else if (id) {
> > chip_type = (enum inv_devices)
> > id->driver_data;
> > name = id->name;
> > } else {
> > return -ENOSYS;
> > }
>
> I don't consider that part of the ABI, as e.g. converting from board files
> to DT would change the name.
> In addition, using id->name breaks multiple instances of the same device.
This has always been a mess as I wasn't paying attention a long time back
and we ended up with some client->name entries being used for iio_dev->name
whereas it should be the part number.
Using id->name is correct choice. This is supposed to be the same for multiple
instances of the same device. There is label and a bunch of other options
for differentiating them including their parent devices.
Problem is that is exported to userspace and often used as part of the
matching when a userspace tool is trying to find the device.
We could 'give it a go' by setting the name in teh switch statement in the core code
and hope no one notices but it's not ideal
https://elixir.bootlin.com/linux/latest/source/drivers/iio/imu/inv_mpu6050/inv_mpu_core.c#L1597
Jonathan
>
> I applaud more unification ;-)
>
> Gr{oetje,eeting}s,
>
> Geert
>
