On Thu, Mar 05, 2020 at 09:05:56PM +0000, Peter Rosin wrote:
> On 2020-03-05 16:53, Andy Shevchenko wrote:
> > Device property API allows to gather device resources from different sources,
> > such as ACPI. Convert the drivers to unleash the power of device property API.
...
> > static const struct i2c_device_id pca954x_id[] = {
> > - { "pca9540", pca_9540 },
> > - { "pca9542", pca_9542 },
> > - { "pca9543", pca_9543 },
> > - { "pca9544", pca_9544 },
> > - { "pca9545", pca_9545 },
> > - { "pca9546", pca_9546 },
> > - { "pca9547", pca_9547 },
> > - { "pca9548", pca_9548 },
> > - { "pca9846", pca_9846 },
> > - { "pca9847", pca_9847 },
> > - { "pca9848", pca_9848 },
> > - { "pca9849", pca_9849 },
> > + { "pca9540", .driver_data = (kernel_ulong_t)&chips[pca_9540] },
> > + { "pca9542", .driver_data = (kernel_ulong_t)&chips[pca_9542] },
> > + { "pca9543", .driver_data = (kernel_ulong_t)&chips[pca_9543] },
> > + { "pca9544", .driver_data = (kernel_ulong_t)&chips[pca_9544] },
> > + { "pca9545", .driver_data = (kernel_ulong_t)&chips[pca_9545] },
> > + { "pca9546", .driver_data = (kernel_ulong_t)&chips[pca_9546] },
> > + { "pca9547", .driver_data = (kernel_ulong_t)&chips[pca_9547] },
> > + { "pca9548", .driver_data = (kernel_ulong_t)&chips[pca_9548] },
> > + { "pca9846", .driver_data = (kernel_ulong_t)&chips[pca_9846] },
> > + { "pca9847", .driver_data = (kernel_ulong_t)&chips[pca_9847] },
> > + { "pca9848", .driver_data = (kernel_ulong_t)&chips[pca_9848] },
> > + { "pca9849", .driver_data = (kernel_ulong_t)&chips[pca_9849] },
>
> It feels odd/wrong to specifically name .driver_data when .name is not there.
> None or both...
I will add .name as well.
> > + data->chip = device_get_match_data(dev);
> > if (!data->chip)
> > data->chip = &chips[id->driver_data];
>
> These two lines no longer make any sence.
Please elaborate.
IIRC Javier explained once that I²C ID table is still good to have to allow
enumeration from user space.
--
With Best Regards,
Andy Shevchenko
