From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from mgamail.intel.com (mgamail.intel.com [198.175.65.17]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.subspace.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 6909086130; Mon, 29 Apr 2024 15:17:22 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; arc=none smtp.client-ip=198.175.65.17 ARC-Seal:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1714403844; cv=none; b=onLaUB51DV9TFzhhmTiobPpbjFdWr6RG1zsBYRQxYW5d3wH+P0cu2G45jaD9vlhjOyU54uaCwhXAjJt5d2QYOmhn9h1PxW9lK6ZDZk0lS5mgKERF1qUl8GztsnrM4V/ZPfVTl+bE4ec3h7sz1l3Rhp+B0trOFMCAD7TAOU133U8= ARC-Message-Signature:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1714403844; c=relaxed/simple; bh=gcw4tAEHnDPg4H7jhkmbcIBrLHMFwk1v1DjumSngLac=; h=Date:From:To:Cc:Subject:Message-ID:References:MIME-Version: Content-Type:Content-Disposition:In-Reply-To; b=ID1g8Ja5YBuZS0l4NNwIFn1c7Y8PG0XPaiBrx4hZE0X9iOW7pR0uXdSXuCoMU7+iCnJ6d7++yI5j4vkGB1bNdTuyjn6DefykW9Yh1Zw/d+dS9Au+po2SPYpwMNMldrxDcKxBRkE2EYzCJGZxR+RSBYnuiYPWdZrP7mw+aXHgN80= ARC-Authentication-Results:i=1; smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=none dis=none) header.from=linux.intel.com; spf=none smtp.mailfrom=linux.intel.com; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=intel.com header.i=@intel.com header.b=B2C1DZH2; arc=none smtp.client-ip=198.175.65.17 Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=none dis=none) header.from=linux.intel.com Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; spf=none smtp.mailfrom=linux.intel.com Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=intel.com header.i=@intel.com header.b="B2C1DZH2" DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=intel.com; i=@intel.com; q=dns/txt; s=Intel; t=1714403843; x=1745939843; h=date:from:to:cc:subject:message-id:references: mime-version:content-transfer-encoding:in-reply-to; bh=gcw4tAEHnDPg4H7jhkmbcIBrLHMFwk1v1DjumSngLac=; b=B2C1DZH2KI9i9VN6cHfVUxAoT/AfGqUhrG/L4fIElGFU0Ynq5MOnXW/j P+rPfJstcfvAZASm+6SyNdrk7PcwAqLS6RfPaQz0KnmzCWFQr3FqPx4tb HnPJk0ja8sv+IhsOPha3QlDpSLJtixaw58pHEEjfja2Bve+PSAmSuNpqz fuD1Xqt/w27koYM+mCh+imlWazIyxrcnn00dlq8il/P1yf6Vq03VTA8Dg AodmVpz5m1X0DsCGjYaMuzgeOedeQ61GrdQD3xyHiv2tulsfd+tBQBosw wxmosGKd3anA8wGknvLYnPrRP4Krfhgyb8o13RwAk5XSelqcdoOB0isyb Q==; X-CSE-ConnectionGUID: EqwihosyRraR/m005cPgPA== X-CSE-MsgGUID: XrQA2XY3R7ml61kHkVm6yg== X-IronPort-AV: E=McAfee;i="6600,9927,11059"; a="10187939" X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="6.07,239,1708416000"; d="scan'208";a="10187939" Received: from fmviesa009.fm.intel.com ([10.60.135.149]) by orvoesa109.jf.intel.com with ESMTP/TLS/ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384; 29 Apr 2024 08:17:07 -0700 X-CSE-ConnectionGUID: ez+scYRsQvCgPbK1VvLvWw== X-CSE-MsgGUID: ON95rIXwSfaWO30afqk2OA== X-ExtLoop1: 1 X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="6.07,239,1708416000"; d="scan'208";a="26098680" Received: from smile.fi.intel.com ([10.237.72.54]) by fmviesa009.fm.intel.com with ESMTP/TLS/ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384; 29 Apr 2024 08:17:04 -0700 Received: from andy by smile.fi.intel.com with local (Exim 4.97) (envelope-from ) id 1s1SkX-00000002NkE-1xWk; Mon, 29 Apr 2024 18:17:01 +0300 Date: Mon, 29 Apr 2024 18:17:01 +0300 From: Andy Shevchenko To: Uwe =?iso-8859-1?Q?Kleine-K=F6nig?= Cc: Arnd Bergmann , Greg Kroah-Hartman , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Krzysztof Kozlowski , Wolfram Sang , linux-i2c@vger.kernel.org, kernel@pengutronix.de Subject: Re: [PATCH RFC] i2c: Add a void pointer to i2c_device_id Message-ID: References: <20240426213832.915485-2-u.kleine-koenig@pengutronix.de> Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: linux-i2c@vger.kernel.org List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit In-Reply-To: Organization: Intel Finland Oy - BIC 0357606-4 - Westendinkatu 7, 02160 Espoo On Mon, Apr 29, 2024 at 03:55:57PM +0200, Uwe Kleine-König wrote: > On Mon, Apr 29, 2024 at 01:28:32PM +0300, Andy Shevchenko wrote: ... > OK, agreed. I'm not sure yet if I prefer > > static const struct i2c_device_id wlf_gf_module_id[] = { > { "wlf-gf-module" }, > { } > }; > > or > > static const struct i2c_device_id wlf_gf_module_id[] = { > { .name = "wlf-gf-module" }, > { } > }; Personally I don't care, but it seems in such cases the .name is too verbose for no benefit. If one needs to expand this with driver data they will change that line in any case. -- With Best Regards, Andy Shevchenko