On Mon, Feb 12, 2018 at 5:30 PM, Pali Rohár <pali.rohar@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> On Wednesday 31 January 2018 14:27:51 Andy Shevchenko wrote:
>> On Wed, Jan 31, 2018 at 2:03 PM, Pali Rohár <pali.rohar@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>> > On Sunday 28 January 2018 17:00:35 Andy Shevchenko wrote:
>> >> On Sun, Jan 28, 2018 at 4:45 PM, Pali Rohár <pali.rohar@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>
>> >> > ACPI device name is SMO8800, SMO8810, ... Will that acpi_dev_present
>> >> > function match only prefix and not exact string?
>> >>
>> >> OK, fair enough.
>> >>
>> >> Do we have more users of such pattern?
>> >
>> > I have not seen this ACPI pattern yet, so probably not.
>>
>> I see. So, my one concern is the implicit names of the devices. I
>> would like rather to see
>>
>> ... acpi_device_id ... []= {
>> {"SMO8800"},
>> {"SMO8810"},
>> ...
>> {}
>> };
>
> Following table already exists in dell-smo8800.c file:
>
> static const struct acpi_device_id smo8800_ids[] = {
> { "SMO8800", 0 },
> { "SMO8801", 0 },
> { "SMO8810", 0 },
> { "SMO8811", 0 },
> { "SMO8820", 0 },
> { "SMO8821", 0 },
> { "SMO8830", 0 },
> { "SMO8831", 0 },
> { "", 0 },
> };
>
> MODULE_DEVICE_TABLE(acpi, smo8800_ids);
>
> Can we reuse it?
> Maybe moving array smo8800_ids[] into some header file
> (which one?) and statically inline it?
Bad idea.
> Or having it only in
> dell-smo8800.c file and exporting its symbol?
Even worse.
> Or is there better idea?
>
> For sure I do not want to copy paste this table into another module and
> maintaining two copies of this list.
The copy is fine. Can you guarantee that those two lists would be
always the same? I'm not.
And besides that explicitly over implicitly is a really good thing. I
would not like to grep for an ID followed by grepping include line and
check each files to check if it uses it or not.
--
With Best Regards,
Andy Shevchenko
