On Thu, May 09, 2024 at 12:48:18PM +0200, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote: > 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: > >> 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? That's what I wrote in the part of my reply that you left out. If a driver is going to be used for multiple devices, then a module id table makes sense, but there is no need to go around adding redundant tables just for the sake of it when a simple alias will do. Johan
