On Mon, Apr 29, 2024 at 12:21:05PM +0200, Uwe Kleine-König wrote:
> On Mon, Apr 29, 2024 at 11:54:29AM +0300, Andy Shevchenko wrote:
> > On Fri, Apr 26, 2024 at 11:38:33PM +0200, Uwe Kleine-König wrote:
...
> > > static const struct i2c_device_id wlf_gf_module_id[] = {
> > > - { "wlf-gf-module", 0 },
> > > + { "wlf-gf-module", },
> >
> > In such cases the inner comma is redundant as well.
>
> I would tend to keep the comma, but no strong opinion on my side.
It's just a confusing leftover in my opinion.
> If another member init is added later, the line has to be touched
> anyhow, but in the layout:
>
> ... = {
> {
> "wlf-gf-module",
> },
> { }
> }
>
> I'd keep it for sure.
That's not what I object. Here I am 100% with you.
> > > { }
> > > };
...
> > In general idea might be okay, but I always have the same Q (do we have it
> > being clarified in the documentation, btw): is an ID table the ABI or not?
> > In another word, how should we treat the changes there, because ID tables
> > are being used by the user space tools.
>
> Note that the layout doesn't change and the traditional interpretation
> of the data still works fine. Or do you see something that I miss?
Do we have any configurations / architectures / etc when
sizeof(kernel_ulong_t) != sizeof(void *) ? If not, we are fine.
(Different endianess seems impossible.)
--
With Best Regards,
Andy Shevchenko
