Hello Mika, > If there is only one file using a HID, then I think it is fine to keep > it in the driver itself. If multiple files share the HID then it makes > sense to put it to include/acpi/acpi_drivers.h. Understood, thanks for the detailed explanation. Indeed, ACPI_SMBUS_IBM_HID is referenced in several files, so it explains why this HID is defined in include/acpi/acpi_drivers.h and not in i2c-scmi.c itself. Ok, I will correct the patch, retest it and resend in next few days. Best regards, Viktor Krasnov. On Fri, 2017-03-31 at 10:47 +0300, Mika Westerberg wrote: > On Fri, Mar 31, 2017 at 10:31:07AM +0300, Viktor Krasnov wrote: > > Hello Mika, > > > > thanks for the review. > > > > > > --- a/include/acpi/acpi_drivers.h > > > > +++ b/include/acpi/acpi_drivers.h > > > > @@ -60,6 +60,8 @@ > > > > #define ACPI_DOCK_HID "LNXDOCK" > > > > /* Quirk for broken IBM BIOSes */ > > > > #define ACPI_SMBUS_IBM_HID "SMBUSIBM" > > > > +/* SMBUS HID definition as supported by Microsoft Windows */ > > > > +#define ACPI_SMBUS_MS_HID "SMB0001" > > > > > I agree with the reasoning but why do you add the ID here also? Wouldn't > > > it suffice if added only to the i2c-scmi.c driver? > > > > This has been done by analogy with existing ACPI_SMBUS_IBM_HID which is > > defined in acpi_drivers.h. I think that it may look confusing when some > > HIDs are defined in i2c-scmi.c and others - in acpi_drivers.h. Could you > > please clarify this moment and confirm that all HIDs must be defined > > only in i2c-scmi.c? I will rework the patch then. > > If there is only one file using a HID, then I think it is fine to keep > it in the driver itself. If multiple files share the HID then it makes > sense to put it to include/acpi/acpi_drivers.h. -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-i2c" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
