On Tue, Feb 13, 2018 at 5:00 PM, Pali Rohár <pali.ro...@gmail.com> wrote: > On Tuesday 13 February 2018 16:55:00 Andy Shevchenko wrote: >> On Mon, Feb 12, 2018 at 5:30 PM, Pali Rohár <pali.ro...@gmail.com> wrote: >> > On Wednesday 31 January 2018 14:27:51 Andy Shevchenko wrote: >> >> On Wed, Jan 31, 2018 at 2:03 PM, Pali Rohár <pali.ro...@gmail.com> wrote: >> >> > On Sunday 28 January 2018 17:00:35 Andy Shevchenko wrote: >> >> >> On Sun, Jan 28, 2018 at 4:45 PM, Pali Rohár <pali.ro...@gmail.com> >> >> >> 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. > > Me neither. > >> 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. > > So what do you suggest now?
Copy'n'paste and maintain two lists. Yes, it's not the ideal, but working solution. You may put a comment before each list to explain what the second does and tell a contributor to look at it and update if needed. > Having one file where it would be defined is a bad idea for you. Not just "one file", but "one *header* file". Or "exporting a symbol" which is basically not supposed to be exported. ID tables are part of the actual drivers, neither headers, nor libraries. > And maintaining copy of same array in two different files in two > different subsystems is something which I cannot guarantee. > > Therefore the current patch is the best approach. I don't like it. I'll not take it, sorry. > No shared file with > shared array/table and also no copy of that array in two different > subsystems. -- With Best Regards, Andy Shevchenko