Messages in this thread | | | Date | Mon, 29 Apr 2024 13:28:32 +0300 | From | Andy Shevchenko <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH RFC] i2c: Add a void pointer to i2c_device_id |
| |
On Mon, Apr 29, 2024 at 12:21:05PM +0200, Uwe Kleine-König wrote: > On Mon, Apr 29, 2024 at 11:54:29AM +0300, Andy Shevchenko wrote: > > On Fri, Apr 26, 2024 at 11:38:33PM +0200, Uwe Kleine-König wrote:
..
> > > static const struct i2c_device_id wlf_gf_module_id[] = { > > > - { "wlf-gf-module", 0 }, > > > + { "wlf-gf-module", }, > > > > In such cases the inner comma is redundant as well. > > I would tend to keep the comma, but no strong opinion on my side.
It's just a confusing leftover in my opinion.
> If another member init is added later, the line has to be touched > anyhow, but in the layout: > > ... = { > { > "wlf-gf-module", > }, > { } > } > > I'd keep it for sure.
That's not what I object. Here I am 100% with you.
> > > { } > > > };
..
> > In general idea might be okay, but I always have the same Q (do we have it > > being clarified in the documentation, btw): is an ID table the ABI or not? > > In another word, how should we treat the changes there, because ID tables > > are being used by the user space tools. > > Note that the layout doesn't change and the traditional interpretation > of the data still works fine. Or do you see something that I miss?
Do we have any configurations / architectures / etc when sizeof(kernel_ulong_t) != sizeof(void *) ? If not, we are fine.
(Different endianess seems impossible.)
-- With Best Regards, Andy Shevchenko
| |