Re: [PATCH 0/2] *** SUBJECT HERE ***

[Greg KH <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org>]

On Sat, Jun 22, 2013 at 08:54:43PM +0200, Anders Hammarquist wrote:
> In a message of Fri, 21 Jun 2013 16:56:03 -0700, Greg KH writes:
> >Please resend this in a format that I can apply it in (i.e. one that
> >does not require me to edit it by hand...)
> 
> After more fighting with git, I belive I now made it spit out what I
> wanted. Patch 1/2 ahead.
> 
> >> -static struct usb_device_id ti_id_table_3410[15+TI_EXTRA_VID_PID_COUNT+1] = {
> >> +static struct usb_device_id ti_id_table_3410[16+TI_EXTRA_VID_PID_COUNT+1] = {
> >
> >That's a mess, why have it be a static array at all?  Just include an
> >empty one at the end.
> 
> Indeed. I'd already had some (failed) thoughts about how to handle it
> nicely. Now I've had another think through, and I have something which
> deals with it and at least complains if TI_EXTRA_VID_PID_COUNT is changed
> without changing the initializer. Patch 2/2

Why don't we just drop the extra id thing entirely?  The usb-serial
subsystem handles new device ids being added dynamically from sysfs for
a long time now.  Removing this module option would clean up the code a
lot, and prevent these errors from ever happening again.

thanks,

greg k-h