On Wednesday 31 January 2018 14:27:51 Andy Shevchenko wrote:
> On Wed, Jan 31, 2018 at 2:03 PM, Pali Rohár <pali.rohar@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > On Sunday 28 January 2018 17:00:35 Andy Shevchenko wrote:
> >> On Sun, Jan 28, 2018 at 4:45 PM, Pali Rohár <pali.rohar@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> >> > ACPI device name is SMO8800, SMO8810, ... Will that acpi_dev_present
> >> > function match only prefix and not exact string?
> >>
> >> OK, fair enough.
> >>
> >> Do we have more users of such pattern?
> >
> > I have not seen this ACPI pattern yet, so probably not.
>
> I see. So, my one concern is the implicit names of the devices. I
> would like rather to see
>
> ... acpi_device_id ... []= {
> {"SMO8800"},
> {"SMO8810"},
> ...
> {}
> };
Following table already exists in dell-smo8800.c file:
static const struct acpi_device_id smo8800_ids[] = {
{ "SMO8800", 0 },
{ "SMO8801", 0 },
{ "SMO8810", 0 },
{ "SMO8811", 0 },
{ "SMO8820", 0 },
{ "SMO8821", 0 },
{ "SMO8830", 0 },
{ "SMO8831", 0 },
{ "", 0 },
};
MODULE_DEVICE_TABLE(acpi, smo8800_ids);
Can we reuse it? Maybe moving array smo8800_ids[] into some header file
(which one?) and statically inline it? Or having it only in
dell-smo8800.c file and exporting its symbol? Or is there better idea?
For sure I do not want to copy paste this table into another module and
maintaining two copies of this list.
--
Pali Rohár
pali.rohar@xxxxxxxxx
