Messages in this thread | | | Date | Sun, 01 Dec 2013 19:45:50 -0800 | From | Guenter Roeck <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH 1/5] serial: 8250_pci: use DEFINE_PCI_DEVICE_TABLE macro |
| |
On 12/01/2013 04:07 PM, Jingoo Han wrote: > On Friday, November 29, 2013 10:34 AM, Jingoo Han wrote: >> On Thursday, November 28, 2013 3:24 PM, Joe Perches wrote: >>> On Wed, 2013-11-27 at 21:53 -0800, 'Greg Kroah-Hartman' wrote: >>>> On Wed, Nov 27, 2013 at 09:40:13PM -0800, Joe Perches wrote: >>>>> On Thu, 2013-11-28 at 14:29 +0900, Jingoo Han wrote: >>>>>> On Thursday, November 28, 2013 1:08 PM, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote: >>>>>>> On Thu, Nov 28, 2013 at 10:55:35AM +0900, Jingoo Han wrote: >>>>>>>> This macro is used to create a struct pci_device_id array. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Yeah, and it's a horrid macro that deserves to be removed, please don't >>>>>>> use it in more places. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Actually, if you could just remove it, that would be best, sorry, I'm >>>>>>> not going to take these patches. >>>>>> >>>>>> (+cc Joe Perches, Andrew Morton, Andy Whitcroft) >>>>>> >>>>>> Hi Joe Perches, >>>>>> >>>>>> Would you fix checkpatch.pl about DEFINE_PCI_DEVICE_TABLE? >>>>>> Currently, checkpatch.pl guides to use DEFINE_PCI_DEVICE_TABLE >>>>>> as below. >>>>>> >>>>>> WARNING: Use DEFINE_PCI_DEVICE_TABLE for struct pci_device_id >>>>>> #331: FILE: drivers/usb/host/ehci-pci.c:331: >>>>>> +static const struct pci_device_id pci_ids [] = { { >>>>>> >>>>>> However, Greg Kroah-Hartman mentioned that DEFINE_PCI_DEVICE_TABLE >>>>>> shouldn't be used anymore. >>>>>> >>>>>> So, would you change checkpatch.pl in order to guide to use >>>>>> struct pci_device_id instead of DEFINE_PCI_DEVICE_TABLE? >>>>>> >>>>>> For example, >>>>>> WARNING: Use struct pci_device_id instead of DEFINE_PCI_DEVICE_TABLE >>>>> >>>>> The documentation doesn't agree with Greg. >>> [] >>>> I say just remove it, I should have done that years ago when I was the >>>> PCI maintainer, just never got around to it. No other bus has something >>>> like this for their device ids, why should PCI be "special"? >>> >>> Anyone else have an opinion? >>> >>> I don't care one way or another, but please, one way >>> not two. >>
Same here.
>> (+cc Bjorn Helgaas, linux-pci) >> >> Then, how about the following steps? >> >> 1. Fix ./Documentation/PCI/pci.txt as below. >> (Jingoo Han) >> The ID table is an array of struct pci_device_id entries ending with an >> -all-zero entry; use of the macro DEFINE_PCI_DEVICE_TABLE is the preferred >> -method of declaring the table. Each entry consists of: >> +all-zero entry; Each entry consists of: >> >> 2. Fix ./scripts/checkpatch.pl in order to guide to use >> struct pci_device_id instead of DEFINE_PCI_DEVICE_TABLE. >> (Joe Perches) > > If all DEFINE_PCI_DEVICE_TABLEs are replaced with 'const struct pci_device_id' > and these patches are merged through 'driver-core.git', it will be not > necessary to fix ./scripts/checkpatch.pl. > Why not ?
Guenter
| |