From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: Pali =?utf-8?B?Um9ow6Fy?= <pali.rohar@gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] i2c: i801: Register optional lis3lv02d i2c device on
 Dell machines
Date: Mon, 12 Feb 2018 16:30:12 +0100
Message-ID: <20180212153012.vffvjmz26ifyxbj5@pali>
References: <20180127133209.28995-1-pali.rohar@gmail.com>
 <CAHp75VdWA-0a_FeicHSi_FfWurQ9EvkdW0raqgoRVySTyxDJ0Q@mail.gmail.com>
 <20180128144509.pobnj7cayc4psgrj@pali>
 <CAHp75VdU1OMTqLcDuzhQMHuX9rMhjw6p3CkSWaW5Y4kOy8ggqg@mail.gmail.com>
 <20180131120348.azy25aqvn5wrdkeh@pali>
 <CAHp75Vf=-RQvCtS684Q5+X=YKmZXgP_1kr0to8BGZX0jQAsuZw@mail.gmail.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Return-path: <platform-driver-x86-owner@vger.kernel.org>
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <CAHp75Vf=-RQvCtS684Q5+X=YKmZXgP_1kr0to8BGZX0jQAsuZw@mail.gmail.com>
Sender: platform-driver-x86-owner@vger.kernel.org
To: Andy Shevchenko <andy.shevchenko@gmail.com>
Cc: Jean Delvare <jdelvare@suse.com>, Wolfram Sang <wsa@the-dreams.de>, =?utf-8?B?TWljaGHFgiBLxJlwaWXFhA==?= <kernel@kempniu.pl>, Steven Honeyman <stevenhoneyman@gmail.com>, Valdis Kletnieks <Valdis.Kletnieks@vt.edu>, Jochen Eisinger <jochen@penguin-breeder.org>, Gabriele Mazzotta <gabriele.mzt@gmail.com>, Andy Lutomirski <luto@kernel.org>, Mario Limonciello <Mario_Limonciello@dell.com>, Alex Hung <alex.hung@canonical.com>, Takashi Iwai <tiwai@suse.de>, linux-i2c <linux-i2c@vger.kernel.org>, Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>, Platform Driver <platform-driver-x86@vger.kernel.org>
List-Id: linux-i2c@vger.kernel.org

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