On Wednesday 12 January 2022 12:43:32 CET Pali Rohár wrote:
>
> On Wednesday 12 January 2022 12:18:58 Jérôme Pouiller wrote:
> > On Wednesday 12 January 2022 11:58:59 CET Pali Rohár wrote:
> > > On Tuesday 11 January 2022 18:14:08 Jerome Pouiller wrote:
> > > > +static const struct sdio_device_id wfx_sdio_ids[] = {
> > > > + { SDIO_DEVICE(SDIO_VENDOR_ID_SILABS, SDIO_DEVICE_ID_SILABS_WF200) },
> > > > + { },
> > > > +};
> > >
> > > Hello! Is this table still required?
> >
> > As far as I understand, if the driver does not provide an id_table, the
> > probe function won't be never called (see sdio_match_device()).
> >
> > Since, we rely on the device tree, we could replace SDIO_VENDOR_ID_SILABS
> > and SDIO_DEVICE_ID_SILABS_WF200 by SDIO_ANY_ID. However, it does not hurt
> > to add an extra filter here.
>
> Now when this particular id is not required, I'm thinking if it is still
> required and it is a good idea to define these SDIO_VENDOR_ID_SILABS
> macros into kernel include files. As it would mean that other broken
> SDIO devices could define these bogus numbers too... And having them in
> common kernel includes files can cause issues... e.g. other developers
> could think that it is correct to use them as they are defined in common
> header files. But as these numbers are not reliable (other broken cards
> may have same ids as wf200) and their usage may cause issues in future.
In order to make SDIO_VENDOR_ID_SILABS less official, do you prefer to
define it in wfx/bus_sdio.c instead of mmc/sdio_ids.h?
Or even not defined at all like:
static const struct sdio_device_id wfx_sdio_ids[] = {
/* WF200 does not have official VID/PID */
{ SDIO_DEVICE(0x0000, 0x1000) },
{ },
};
--
Jérôme Pouiller
_______________________________________________
devel mailing list
devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://driverdev.linuxdriverproject.org/mailman/listinfo/driverdev-devel
