Re: [PATCH 1/5] serial: 8250_pci: use DEFINE_PCI_DEVICE_TABLE macro

[Guenter Roeck <linux@roeck-us.net>]

On 12/01/2013 07:50 PM, Jingoo Han wrote:
> On Monday, December 02, 2013 12:46 PM, Guenter Roeck wrote:
>> On 12/01/2013 04:07 PM, Jingoo Han wrote:
>>> On Friday, November 29, 2013 10:34 AM, Jingoo Han wrote:
>>>> On Thursday, November 28, 2013 3:24 PM, Joe Perches wrote:
>>>>> On Wed, 2013-11-27 at 21:53 -0800, 'Greg Kroah-Hartman' wrote:
>>>>>> On Wed, Nov 27, 2013 at 09:40:13PM -0800, Joe Perches wrote:
>>>>>>> On Thu, 2013-11-28 at 14:29 +0900, Jingoo Han wrote:
>>>>>>>> On Thursday, November 28, 2013 1:08 PM, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On Thu, Nov 28, 2013 at 10:55:35AM +0900, Jingoo Han wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> This macro is used to create a struct pci_device_id array.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Yeah, and it's a horrid macro that deserves to be removed, please don't
>>>>>>>>> use it in more places.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Actually, if you could just remove it, that would be best, sorry, I'm
>>>>>>>>> not going to take these patches.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> (+cc Joe Perches, Andrew Morton, Andy Whitcroft)
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Hi Joe Perches,
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Would you fix checkpatch.pl about DEFINE_PCI_DEVICE_TABLE?
>>>>>>>> Currently, checkpatch.pl guides to use DEFINE_PCI_DEVICE_TABLE
>>>>>>>> as below.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>     WARNING: Use DEFINE_PCI_DEVICE_TABLE for struct pci_device_id
>>>>>>>>     #331: FILE: drivers/usb/host/ehci-pci.c:331:
>>>>>>>>     +static const struct pci_device_id pci_ids [] = { {
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> However, Greg Kroah-Hartman mentioned that DEFINE_PCI_DEVICE_TABLE
>>>>>>>> shouldn't be used anymore.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> So, would you change checkpatch.pl in order to guide to use
>>>>>>>> struct pci_device_id instead of DEFINE_PCI_DEVICE_TABLE?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> For example,
>>>>>>>>     WARNING: Use struct pci_device_id instead of DEFINE_PCI_DEVICE_TABLE
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> The documentation doesn't agree with Greg.
>>>>> []
>>>>>> I say just remove it, I should have done that years ago when I was the
>>>>>> PCI maintainer, just never got around to it.  No other bus has something
>>>>>> like this for their device ids, why should PCI be "special"?
>>>>>
>>>>> Anyone else have an opinion?
>>>>>
>>>>> I don't care one way or another, but please, one way
>>>>> not two.
>>>>
>>
>> Same here.
>>
>>>> (+cc Bjorn Helgaas, linux-pci)
>>>>
>>>> Then, how about the following steps?
>>>>
>>>> 1. Fix ./Documentation/PCI/pci.txt as below.
>>>>      (Jingoo Han)
>>>>      The ID table is an array of struct pci_device_id entries ending with an
>>>>      -all-zero entry; use of the macro DEFINE_PCI_DEVICE_TABLE is the preferred
>>>>      -method of declaring the table.  Each entry consists of:
>>>>      +all-zero entry; Each entry consists of:
>>>>
>>>> 2. Fix ./scripts/checkpatch.pl in order to guide to use
>>>>       struct pci_device_id instead of DEFINE_PCI_DEVICE_TABLE.
>>>>       (Joe Perches)
>>>
>>> If all DEFINE_PCI_DEVICE_TABLEs are replaced with 'const struct pci_device_id'
>>> and these patches are merged through 'driver-core.git', it will be not
>>> necessary to fix ./scripts/checkpatch.pl.
>>>
>> Why not ?
>
> I will replace all DEFINE_PCI_DEVICE_TABLEs with 'const struct pci_device_id',
> and remove the definition of DEFINE_PCI_DEVICE_TABLE macro.
>
> --- a/include/linux/pci.h
> +++ b/include/linux/pci.h
> @@ -631,16 +631,6 @@ struct pci_driver {
>   #define        to_pci_driver(drv) container_of(drv, struct pci_driver, driver)
>
>   /**
> - * DEFINE_PCI_DEVICE_TABLE - macro used to describe a pci device table
> - * @_table: device table name
> - *
> - * This macro is used to create a struct pci_device_id array (a device table)
> - * in a generic manner.
> - */
> -#define DEFINE_PCI_DEVICE_TABLE(_table) \
> -       const struct pci_device_id _table[]
> -
> -/**
>
> In this case, there is no DEFINE_PCI_DEVICE_TABLE usage
> in the kernel. If someone uses DEFINE_PCI_DEVICE_TABLE macro,
> it will make  build error.
>

And that will make the checkpatch warning go away ?
That seems to be very unlikely.

Guenter