On Sat, Jun 22, 2024 at 6:43 PM Pali Rohár <pali@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> On Saturday 22 June 2024 16:20:15 Pali Rohár wrote:
...
> Definition of the table can be simplified by defining a macro which
> expand to those verbose parts which are being repeating, without need to
> introduce something "new". E.g.:
>
> #define DELL_LIS3LV02D_DMI_ENTRY(product_name, i2c_addr) \
> { \
> .matches = {
> DMI_MATCH(DMI_SYS_VENDOR, "Dell Inc."), \
> DMI_MATCH(DMI_PRODUCT_NAME, product_name), \
> }, \
> .driver_data = (void *)(i2c_addr), \
I'm not against this as we have a lot of different examples similar to
this (with maybe other types of ID tables). But what makes me worry is
the use of (void *) here. Shouldn't it be (const void *) so we exclude
the (potential) cases of dropping const qualifier?
> }
>
> static const struct dmi_system_id smo8800_lis3lv02d_devices[] = {
> DELL_LIS3LV02D_DMI_ENTRY("Latitude E5250", 0x29),
> DELL_LIS3LV02D_DMI_ENTRY("Latitude E5450", 0x29),
> ...
> { }
> };
>
> Any opinion about this?
--
With Best Regards,
Andy Shevchenko
