On 09/05/2024 14:26, Johan Hovold wrote: > 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. > I still in general prefer ID tables, because I saw many times people copy existing code while not understanding above subtleties thus they just keep multiplying MODULE_ALIAS, but I understand your explanation and it is reasonable. FWIW: Acked-by: Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzysztof.kozlowski@xxxxxxxxxx> Best regards, Krzysztof
