On Tue, 2018-08-07 at 13:29 +0200, Hans de Goede wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On 07-08-18 13:19, Andy Shevchenko wrote:
> > On Tue, 2018-08-07 at 10:05 +0200, Hans de Goede wrote:
> > > + /*
> > > + * These devices have multiple I2cSerialBus resources and an
> > > i2c-client
> > > + * must be instantiated for each, each with its own
> > > i2c_device_id.
> > > + * Normally we only instantiate an i2c-client for the first
> > > resource,
> > > + * using the ACPI HID as id. These special cases are handled by
> > > the
> > > + * drivers/platform/x86/i2c-multi-instantiate.c driver, which
> > > knows
> > > + * which i2c_device_id to use for each resource.
> > > + */
> > > + static const struct acpi_device_id i2c_multi_instantiate_ids[] =
> > > {
> > > + {"BSG1160", 0},
> > > + {"", 0},
> > > + };
> >
> > Style nits:
> > - can we move it outside of function?
>
> Sure, but there are 2 existing users of an array of acpi_device_id-s
> combined with an acpi_match_device_ids() call and both have the array
> inside the function, so for consistency it seems better to keep it
> where it is.
Hmm... OK.
> > - is this existing style in the file and / or files in this folder
> > for
> > IDs? (I mean unnecessary 0:s and empty string?
>
> It seems that all variants one can come up with are already used
> inside
> this single file.
Ah, that's sad.
> I agree that less is more, so I will change this to:
>
> static const struct acpi_device_id
> i2c_multi_instantiate_ids[] = {
> {"BSG1160", },
> {}
> };
In case if it mimics already existing style, looks quite good to me
(otherwise perhaps comma inside {} can also be removed).
>
> For v4.
Does it make sense to test v3 on your opinion? Or better to wait for v4?
--
Andy Shevchenko <andriy.shevchenko@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Intel Finland Oy
