On Fri, 2014-07-18 at 17:27 +0200, Benoit Taine wrote: > We should prefer `struct pci_device_id` over `DEFINE_PCI_DEVICE_TABLE` to meet > kernel coding style guidelines. This issue was reported by checkpatch. > > Signed-off-by: Benoit Taine <[email protected]> > > --- > Tested by compilation without errors. > > drivers/ipack/carriers/tpci200.c | 2 +- > 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-) > > diff --git a/drivers/ipack/carriers/tpci200.c > b/drivers/ipack/carriers/tpci200.c > index c276fde..de5e321 100644 > --- a/drivers/ipack/carriers/tpci200.c > +++ b/drivers/ipack/carriers/tpci200.c > @@ -618,7 +618,7 @@ static void tpci200_pci_remove(struct pci_dev *dev) > __tpci200_pci_remove(tpci200); > } > > -static DEFINE_PCI_DEVICE_TABLE(tpci200_idtable) = { > +static const struct pci_device_id tpci200_idtable[] = { > { TPCI200_VENDOR_ID, TPCI200_DEVICE_ID, TPCI200_SUBVENDOR_ID, > TPCI200_SUBDEVICE_ID }, > { 0, }, > >
Acked-by: Samuel Iglesias Gonsalvez <[email protected]> Greg, Would you mind picking this patch through your char-misc tree? Thanks, Sam
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
