Hello Dmitry, On Mon, Jul 01, 2024 at 03:57:18PM -0700, Dmitry Torokhov wrote: > On Mon, May 13, 2024 at 03:53:27PM -0700, Dmitry Torokhov wrote: > > On Thu, May 09, 2024 at 07:41:59PM +0200, Uwe Kleine-König wrote: > > > These drivers don't use the driver_data member of struct i2c_device_id, > > > so don't explicitly initialize this member. > > > > > > This prepares putting driver_data in an anonymous union which requires > > > either no initialization or named designators. But it's also a nice > > > cleanup on its own. > > > > > > While add it, also remove commas after the sentinel entries. > > > > > > Signed-off-by: Uwe Kleine-König <u.kleine-koenig@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> > > > > Applied, thank you. > > Uwe, could you share the end goal here? It looks like there are couple > of efforts to deal with driver matching data, for example I had this > proposal (which I did not pursue further so far): > > https://lore.kernel.org/all/20230814-i2c-id-rework-v1-0-3e5bc71c49ee@xxxxxxxxx/ > > I think it would be good for all of use to be on the same page. My idea is described in https://lore.kernel.org/linux-i2c/pja67neo74zw6rqpv5n7ekivlhejbmpuge6umtuatwhgjbmcwr@7u7f7vhpnwtt, maybe with different names for the two union members. My current favorite is void *driver_data_ptr; kernel_ulong_t driver_data; If you have concerns/ideas, I suggest to share them in this thread such that we have the complete discussion in a single place. Best regards Uwe
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
