Johan Hovold <johan@xxxxxxxxxx> writes:
> On Wed, Aug 19, 2015 at 08:51:17AM -0700, Liu.Zhao wrote:
>>
>> #define BENQ_VENDOR_ID 0x04a5
>> #define BENQ_PRODUCT_H10 0x4068
>> @@ -544,6 +548,14 @@ static const struct option_blacklist_info zte_mc2716_z_blacklist = {
>> .sendsetup = BIT(1) | BIT(2) | BIT(3),
>> };
>>
>> +static const struct option_blacklist_info zte_me3620andzm8620_xl_blacklist = {
>> + .reserved = BIT(3) | BIT(4) | BIT(5),
>> +};
>
> Use two structs for this: zte_me3620_blacklist and zm8620_xl_blacklist
> even if they reserve the same ports.
Why? Wouldn't it be better to merge all identical lists and give them
structured names describing their contents instead? E.g.
static const struct option_blacklist_info bi_s0001_r = {
.sendsetup = BIT(0) | BIT(1),
};
static const struct option_blacklist_info bi_s0001_r04 = {
.sendsetup = BIT(0) | BIT(1),
.reserved = BIT(4),
};
static const struct option_blacklist_info bi_s_r030405 = {
.reserved = BIT(3) | BIT(4) | BIT(5),
};
etc. Or some other naming scheme.
I don't see the point of having lots of identical structs just to be
able to name them after some rarely meaningful marketing name. Many
vendors recycle their pids, making this completely futile.
Bjørn
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-usb" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
