On Monday, December 02, 2013 12:46 PM, Guenter Roeck wrote:
> On 12/01/2013 04:07 PM, Jingoo Han wrote:
> > On Friday, November 29, 2013 10:34 AM, Jingoo Han wrote:
> >> On Thursday, November 28, 2013 3:24 PM, Joe Perches wrote:
> >>> On Wed, 2013-11-27 at 21:53 -0800, 'Greg Kroah-Hartman' wrote:
> >>>> On Wed, Nov 27, 2013 at 09:40:13PM -0800, Joe Perches wrote:
> >>>>> On Thu, 2013-11-28 at 14:29 +0900, Jingoo Han wrote:
> >>>>>> On Thursday, November 28, 2013 1:08 PM, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote:
> >>>>>>> On Thu, Nov 28, 2013 at 10:55:35AM +0900, Jingoo Han wrote:
> >>>>>>>> This macro is used to create a struct pci_device_id array.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> Yeah, and it's a horrid macro that deserves to be removed, please don't
> >>>>>>> use it in more places.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> Actually, if you could just remove it, that would be best, sorry, I'm
> >>>>>>> not going to take these patches.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> (+cc Joe Perches, Andrew Morton, Andy Whitcroft)
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Hi Joe Perches,
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Would you fix checkpatch.pl about DEFINE_PCI_DEVICE_TABLE?
> >>>>>> Currently, checkpatch.pl guides to use DEFINE_PCI_DEVICE_TABLE
> >>>>>> as below.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> WARNING: Use DEFINE_PCI_DEVICE_TABLE for struct pci_device_id
> >>>>>> #331: FILE: drivers/usb/host/ehci-pci.c:331:
> >>>>>> +static const struct pci_device_id pci_ids [] = { {
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> However, Greg Kroah-Hartman mentioned that DEFINE_PCI_DEVICE_TABLE
> >>>>>> shouldn't be used anymore.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> So, would you change checkpatch.pl in order to guide to use
> >>>>>> struct pci_device_id instead of DEFINE_PCI_DEVICE_TABLE?
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> For example,
> >>>>>> WARNING: Use struct pci_device_id instead of DEFINE_PCI_DEVICE_TABLE
> >>>>>
> >>>>> The documentation doesn't agree with Greg.
> >>> []
> >>>> I say just remove it, I should have done that years ago when I was the
> >>>> PCI maintainer, just never got around to it. No other bus has something
> >>>> like this for their device ids, why should PCI be "special"?
> >>>
> >>> Anyone else have an opinion?
> >>>
> >>> I don't care one way or another, but please, one way
> >>> not two.
> >>
>
> Same here.
>
> >> (+cc Bjorn Helgaas, linux-pci)
> >>
> >> Then, how about the following steps?
> >>
> >> 1. Fix ./Documentation/PCI/pci.txt as below.
> >> (Jingoo Han)
> >> The ID table is an array of struct pci_device_id entries ending with an
> >> -all-zero entry; use of the macro DEFINE_PCI_DEVICE_TABLE is the preferred
> >> -method of declaring the table. Each entry consists of:
> >> +all-zero entry; Each entry consists of:
> >>
> >> 2. Fix ./scripts/checkpatch.pl in order to guide to use
> >> struct pci_device_id instead of DEFINE_PCI_DEVICE_TABLE.
> >> (Joe Perches)
> >
> > If all DEFINE_PCI_DEVICE_TABLEs are replaced with 'const struct pci_device_id'
> > and these patches are merged through 'driver-core.git', it will be not
> > necessary to fix ./scripts/checkpatch.pl.
> >
> Why not ?
I will replace all DEFINE_PCI_DEVICE_TABLEs with 'const struct pci_device_id',
and remove the definition of DEFINE_PCI_DEVICE_TABLE macro.
--- a/include/linux/pci.h
+++ b/include/linux/pci.h
@@ -631,16 +631,6 @@ struct pci_driver {
#define to_pci_driver(drv) container_of(drv, struct pci_driver, driver)
/**
- * DEFINE_PCI_DEVICE_TABLE - macro used to describe a pci device table
- * @_table: device table name
- *
- * This macro is used to create a struct pci_device_id array (a device table)
- * in a generic manner.
- */
-#define DEFINE_PCI_DEVICE_TABLE(_table) \
- const struct pci_device_id _table[]
-
-/**
In this case, there is no DEFINE_PCI_DEVICE_TABLE usage
in the kernel. If someone uses DEFINE_PCI_DEVICE_TABLE macro,
it will make build error.
Best regards,
Jingoo Han
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-pci" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
