On Mon, Dec 19, 2022 at 06:49:39PM +0200, Dmitry Baryshkov wrote: > On Mon, 19 Dec 2022 at 16:17, Manivannan Sadhasivam > <manivannan.sadhasivam@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > On Mon, Dec 19, 2022 at 03:11:36PM +0100, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote: > > > On 19/12/2022 14:50, Manivannan Sadhasivam wrote: > > > > > > > >>> Also, the id table is > > > >>> an overkill since there is only one driver that is making use of it. And > > > >>> moreover, there is no definite ID to use. > > > >> > > > >> Every driver with a single device support has usually ID table and it's > > > >> not a problem... > > > >> > > > > > > > > Are you referring to OF/ACPI ID table? Or something else? > > > > > > No, I refer to the driver ID table (I2C, platform whatever the driver is). > > > > > > > Yeah, that's what I wanted to avoid here. The ID table makes sense if you have > > a bus like I2C or a separate subsystem but here LLCC is an individual driver. > > So creating a separate ID table is an overkill IMO. > > Well, struct platform_device_id is used quite a lot together with the > MODULE_DEVICE_TABLE(platform, _ids); > > On the other hand: > > $ git grep MODULE_ALIAS.*platform: | wc -l > 1308 > $ git grep MODULE_DEVICE_TABLE.*platform | wc -l > 236 > Hmm. I think I will just go with platform_device_id in the next version. Thanks, Mani > -- > With best wishes > Dmitry -- மணிவண்ணன் சதாசிவம்
