On Friday 21 June 2024 14:24:58 Hans de Goede wrote:
> + {
> + .matches = {
> + DMI_MATCH(DMI_SYS_VENDOR, "Dell Inc."),
> + DMI_MATCH(DMI_PRODUCT_NAME, "Latitude E6440"),
> + },
> + .driver_data = (void *)0x29L,
> + },
> + {
> + .matches = {
> + DMI_MATCH(DMI_SYS_VENDOR, "Dell Inc."),
> + DMI_MATCH(DMI_PRODUCT_NAME, "Latitude E6440 ATG"),
> + },
> + .driver_data = (void *)0x29L,
> + },
This is an example why DMI_MATCH is not a good idea for usage and
DMI_EXACT_MATCH should be there instead. First entry is substring of
second entry, so kernel running on second model will use first entry.
Both have same driver_data, so it is not an issue now. But if the list
will be extended in future then DMI_MATCH conflicts can appear invisibly.
Anyway, in i2c-i801.c is exact match on the both vendor and product name.
