Hi Mathieu,
On 3/10/20 10:50 AM, Mathieu Poirier wrote:
> Adding the capability to supplement the base definition published
> by an rpmsg_driver with a postfix description so that it is possible
> for several entity to use the same service.
>
> Signed-off-by: Mathieu Poirier <mathieu.poirier@xxxxxxxxxx>
> Acked-by: Arnaud Pouliquen <arnaud.pouliquen@xxxxxx>
So, the concern I have here is that we are retrofitting this into the
existing 32-byte name field, and the question is if it is going to be
enough in general. That's the reason I went with the additional 32-byte
field with the "rpmsg: add a description field" patch.
regards
Suman
> ---
> Changes for V2:
> - Added Arnaud's Acked-by.
> - Rebased to latest rproc-next.
>
> drivers/rpmsg/rpmsg_core.c | 20 +++++++++++++++++++-
> 1 file changed, 19 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
>
> diff --git a/drivers/rpmsg/rpmsg_core.c b/drivers/rpmsg/rpmsg_core.c
> index e330ec4dfc33..bfd25978fa35 100644
> --- a/drivers/rpmsg/rpmsg_core.c
> +++ b/drivers/rpmsg/rpmsg_core.c
> @@ -399,7 +399,25 @@ ATTRIBUTE_GROUPS(rpmsg_dev);
> static inline int rpmsg_id_match(const struct rpmsg_device *rpdev,
> const struct rpmsg_device_id *id)
> {
> - return strncmp(id->name, rpdev->id.name, RPMSG_NAME_SIZE) == 0;
> + size_t len = min_t(size_t, strlen(id->name), RPMSG_NAME_SIZE);
> +
> + /*
> + * Allow for wildcard matches. For example if rpmsg_driver::id_table
> + * is:
> + *
> + * static struct rpmsg_device_id rpmsg_driver_sample_id_table[] = {
> + * { .name = "rpmsg-client-sample" },
> + * { },
> + * }
> + *
> + * Then it is possible to support "rpmsg-client-sample*", i.e:
> + * rpmsg-client-sample
> + * rpmsg-client-sample_instance0
> + * rpmsg-client-sample_instance1
> + * ...
> + * rpmsg-client-sample_instanceX
> + */
> + return strncmp(id->name, rpdev->id.name, len) == 0;
> }
>
> /* match rpmsg channel and rpmsg driver */
>
