> On Jan 25, 2021, at 9:45 AM, Robert Elz <k...@munnari.oz.au> wrote:
>
> Date: Mon, 25 Jan 2021 08:19:44 -0800
> From: Jason Thorpe <thor...@me.com>
> Message-ID: <d53fd192-8f50-4609-a799-ba8c2d901...@me.com>
>
> | Using { 0 } makes an assumption about the first member of the
> | structure which is not guaranteed to remain true.
>
> That's right, but you could explicitly init a named field, most likely
> the one that is tested to determine that this is the sentinel, eg: from
> one of the recent updates ...
>
> static const struct device_compatible_entry compat_data[] = {
> { .compat = "pnpPNP,401" },
> - { 0 }
> + { }
> };
>
> that could instead be changed to
> { .compat = NULL }
>
> (or something similar to that).
I noticed this because of a different local change in my tree that makes the
first field another anonymous union.
Anyhow, I'll go ahead and define a standard sentinel macro that can be used for
the common { .compat = XXX } case, and fire up sed to fix up the tree.
-- thorpej
