On Wed, Aug 11, 2021 at 11:05:06PM +0200, Heiner Kallweit wrote:
> On 11.08.2021 17:52, Andy Shevchenko wrote:
> > On Fri, Aug 06, 2021 at 11:18:05PM +0200, Heiner Kallweit wrote:
> >> - Use an initializer for struct i2c_board_info info
> >> - Use dmi_match()
> >> - Simplify loop logic
> >
> > I'm wondering if changing this to a DMI match table will give better result.
> >
> > Something like
> > (Sorry I forgot APIs, but plenty of examples are under PDx86: drivers/platform/x86):
> >
> > struct dmi_..._id *id;
> >
> > id = dmi_..._match();
> > if (!id) {
> > pci_warn();
> > return;
> > }
> >
> > i2c_new_client_device(...);
> >
> We could do something like the following. Whether it's better may be a
> question of personal taste. I have no strong opinion here and would leave
> it to Jean.
>
> const struct dmi_system_id lis3_id_table[] = {
> {
> .driver_data = (void *)0x29,
> .matches = {
> DMI_MATCH(DMI_PRODUCT_NAME, "Latitude E5550"),
> },
> },
> ...
>
> dmi_system_id *id = dmi_first_match(lis3_id_table);
> if (id)
> i2c_new_client_device(..., (unsigned int)id->driver_data;
> else
> lament()
Yep, my point here that this has less indentation of the code, no unneeded
for-loop (which will be inside DMI APIs, etc).
But yes, I agree that this is rather matter of taste.
--
With Best Regards,
Andy Shevchenko
