Messages in this thread | | | Subject | Re: [PATCH v3 2/4] ACPI / scan: Create platform device for fwnodes with multiple i2c devices | From | Hans de Goede <> | Date | Wed, 8 Aug 2018 10:07:22 +0200 |
| |
Hi,
On 07-08-18 13:49, Andy Shevchenko wrote: > On Tue, 2018-08-07 at 13:29 +0200, Hans de Goede wrote: >> Hi, >> >> On 07-08-18 13:19, Andy Shevchenko wrote: >>> On Tue, 2018-08-07 at 10:05 +0200, Hans de Goede wrote: > >>>> + /* >>>> + * These devices have multiple I2cSerialBus resources and an >>>> i2c-client >>>> + * must be instantiated for each, each with its own >>>> i2c_device_id. >>>> + * Normally we only instantiate an i2c-client for the first >>>> resource, >>>> + * using the ACPI HID as id. These special cases are handled by >>>> the >>>> + * drivers/platform/x86/i2c-multi-instantiate.c driver, which >>>> knows >>>> + * which i2c_device_id to use for each resource. >>>> + */ >>>> + static const struct acpi_device_id i2c_multi_instantiate_ids[] = >>>> { >>>> + {"BSG1160", 0}, >>>> + {"", 0}, >>>> + }; >>> >>> Style nits: >>> - can we move it outside of function? >> >> Sure, but there are 2 existing users of an array of acpi_device_id-s >> combined with an acpi_match_device_ids() call and both have the array >> inside the function, so for consistency it seems better to keep it >> where it is. > > Hmm... OK. > >>> - is this existing style in the file and / or files in this folder >>> for >>> IDs? (I mean unnecessary 0:s and empty string? >> >> It seems that all variants one can come up with are already used >> inside >> this single file. > > Ah, that's sad. > >> I agree that less is more, so I will change this to: >> >> static const struct acpi_device_id >> i2c_multi_instantiate_ids[] = { > >> {"BSG1160", }, >> {} >> }; > > In case if it mimics already existing style, looks quite good to me > (otherwise perhaps comma inside {} can also be removed). > >> >> For v4. > > Does it make sense to test v3 on your opinion? Or better to wait for v4?
Sorry for being a bit slow to answer, I'm about to send out v4, so probably best to wait for that now. Note the 2 will be functionally identical, I mainly fixed / clarified commit messages and the MAINTAINERS entry + the small style fixed discussed above.
Regards,
Hans
| |