On 09/05/2024 10:57, Johan Hovold wrote:
> On Tue, May 07, 2024 at 08:14:43PM +0200, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote:
>> On 07/05/2024 19:22, Andy Shevchenko wrote:
>>> On Tue, May 7, 2024 at 6:44 PM Johan Hovold <johan@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>>> On Mon, May 06, 2024 at 10:09:50PM +0300, Andy Shevchenko wrote:
>>>>> Mon, May 06, 2024 at 05:08:29PM +0200, Johan Hovold kirjoitti:
>
>>>>>> +MODULE_ALIAS("platform:qcom-pm8008-regulator");
>>>>>
>>>>> Use ID table instead.
>>>>
>>>> No, the driver is not using an id-table for matching so the alias is
>>>> needed for module auto-loading.
>>>
>>> Then create one. Added Krzysztof for that. (He is working on dropping
>>> MODULE_ALIAS() in cases like this one)
>>
>> Yeah, please use ID table, since this is a driver (unless I missed
>> something). Module alias does not scale, leads to stale and duplicated
>> entries, so should not be used as substitute of ID table. Alias is
>> suitable for different cases.
>
> There's no scalability issue here. If the driver uses driver name
> matching then there will always be exactly one alias needed.
And then we add one more ID with driver data and how does it scale?
There is a way to make drivers uniform, standard and easy to read. Why
doing some other way? What is the benefit of the alias comparing to
regular module ID table?
Best regards,
Krzysztof
