lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2013]   [Dec]   [1]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
    /
    Date
    From
    SubjectRe: [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



    \
     
     \ /
      Last update: 2013-12-02 05:01    [W:4.148 / U:0.060 seconds]
    ©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site