On Wednesday 12 January 2022 17:45:45 Jérôme Pouiller wrote:
> On Wednesday 12 January 2022 12:43:32 CET Pali Rohár wrote:
> >
> > On Wednesday 12 January 2022 12:18:58 Jérôme Pouiller wrote:
> > > On Wednesday 12 January 2022 11:58:59 CET Pali Rohár wrote:
> > > > On Tuesday 11 January 2022 18:14:08 Jerome Pouiller wrote:
> > > > > +static const struct sdio_device_id wfx_sdio_ids[] = {
> > > > > + { SDIO_DEVICE(SDIO_VENDOR_ID_SILABS, SDIO_DEVICE_ID_SILABS_WF200) },
> > > > > + { },
> > > > > +};
> > > >
> > > > Hello! Is this table still required?
> > >
> > > As far as I understand, if the driver does not provide an id_table, the
> > > probe function won't be never called (see sdio_match_device()).
> > >
> > > Since, we rely on the device tree, we could replace SDIO_VENDOR_ID_SILABS
> > > and SDIO_DEVICE_ID_SILABS_WF200 by SDIO_ANY_ID. However, it does not hurt
> > > to add an extra filter here.
> >
> > Now when this particular id is not required, I'm thinking if it is still
> > required and it is a good idea to define these SDIO_VENDOR_ID_SILABS
> > macros into kernel include files. As it would mean that other broken
> > SDIO devices could define these bogus numbers too... And having them in
> > common kernel includes files can cause issues... e.g. other developers
> > could think that it is correct to use them as they are defined in common
> > header files. But as these numbers are not reliable (other broken cards
> > may have same ids as wf200) and their usage may cause issues in future.
>
> In order to make SDIO_VENDOR_ID_SILABS less official, do you prefer to
> define it in wfx/bus_sdio.c instead of mmc/sdio_ids.h?
>
> Or even not defined at all like:
>
> static const struct sdio_device_id wfx_sdio_ids[] = {
> /* WF200 does not have official VID/PID */
> { SDIO_DEVICE(0x0000, 0x1000) },
> { },
> };
This has advantage that it is explicitly visible that this device does
not use any officially assigned ids.
>
>
> --
> Jérôme Pouiller
>
>
