On Sat, Jun 22, 2013 at 08:54:43PM +0200, Anders Hammarquist wrote: > In a message of Fri, 21 Jun 2013 16:56:03 -0700, Greg KH writes: > >Please resend this in a format that I can apply it in (i.e. one that > >does not require me to edit it by hand...) > > After more fighting with git, I belive I now made it spit out what I > wanted. Patch 1/2 ahead. > > >> -static struct usb_device_id ti_id_table_3410[15+TI_EXTRA_VID_PID_COUNT+1] = { > >> +static struct usb_device_id ti_id_table_3410[16+TI_EXTRA_VID_PID_COUNT+1] = { > > > >That's a mess, why have it be a static array at all? Just include an > >empty one at the end. > > Indeed. I'd already had some (failed) thoughts about how to handle it > nicely. Now I've had another think through, and I have something which > deals with it and at least complains if TI_EXTRA_VID_PID_COUNT is changed > without changing the initializer. Patch 2/2 Why don't we just drop the extra id thing entirely? The usb-serial subsystem handles new device ids being added dynamically from sysfs for a long time now. Removing this module option would clean up the code a lot, and prevent these errors from ever happening again. thanks, greg k-h -- 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