Re: [PATCH v2] i2c: i801: Register optional lis3lv02d i2c device on Dell machines

["Pali Rohár" <pali.rohar@gmail.com>]

On Wednesday 31 January 2018 14:27:51 Andy Shevchenko wrote:
> On Wed, Jan 31, 2018 at 2:03 PM, Pali Rohár <pali.rohar@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.rohar@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? Or having it only in
dell-smo8800.c file and exporting its symbol? 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.

-- 
Pali Rohár
pali.rohar@gmail.com