[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <1385619863.12210.14.camel@joe-AO722>
Date: Wed, 27 Nov 2013 22:24:23 -0800
From: Joe Perches <joe@...ches.com>
To: 'Greg Kroah-Hartman' <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>
Cc: Jingoo Han <jg1.han@...sung.com>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
'Andrew Morton' <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
'Andy Whitcroft' <apw@...onical.com>,
linux-serial@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/5] serial: 8250_pci: use DEFINE_PCI_DEVICE_TABLE macro
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.
Changing checkpatch is a trifle, but there are a _lot_
of maintainers to work through if it's to be removed.
It'll probably take several releases.
$ git grep --name-only -w DEFINE_PCI_DEVICE_TABLE | \
cut -f1,2 -d/ | uniq -c
1 Documentation/PCI
1 arch/x86
1 drivers/bcma
3 drivers/block
1 drivers/char
1 drivers/cpufreq
2 drivers/dma
18 drivers/edac
6 drivers/gpio
6 drivers/gpu
6 drivers/hwmon
20 drivers/i2c
2 drivers/infiniband
1 drivers/ipack
1 drivers/leds
3 drivers/media
10 drivers/mfd
2 drivers/misc
1 drivers/mmc
1 drivers/mtd
132 drivers/net
1 drivers/ntb
1 drivers/pci
5 drivers/pcmcia
2 drivers/platform
1 drivers/ptp
1 drivers/rapidio
7 drivers/scsi
3 drivers/spi
65 drivers/staging
3 drivers/tty
1 drivers/uio
5 drivers/usb
1 drivers/video
1 drivers/virtio
3 drivers/vme
9 drivers/watchdog
1 drivers/xen
1 include/linux
1 scripts/checkpatch.pl
1 scripts/tags.sh
1 sound/oss
67 sound/pci
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists