[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <OS0PR01MB59225D35AB0AF2999D1F60388614A@OS0PR01MB5922.jpnprd01.prod.outlook.com>
Date: Tue, 15 Aug 2023 07:06:35 +0000
From: Biju Das <biju.das.jz@...renesas.com>
To: Andy Shevchenko <andriy.shevchenko@...ux.intel.com>
CC: Jonathan Cameron <jic23@...nel.org>,
"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Peter Rosin <peda@...ntia.se>,
Dmitry Torokhov <dmitry.torokhov@...il.com>,
Daniel Scally <djrscally@...il.com>,
Heikki Krogerus <heikki.krogerus@...ux.intel.com>,
Sakari Ailus <sakari.ailus@...ux.intel.com>,
Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
Alexandre Belloni <alexandre.belloni@...tlin.com>,
"Rafael J. Wysocki" <rafael@...nel.org>,
"linux-acpi@...r.kernel.org" <linux-acpi@...r.kernel.org>,
Andi Shyti <andi.shyti@...nel.org>,
Wolfram Sang <wsa@...nel.org>,
Geert Uytterhoeven <geert+renesas@...der.be>,
"linux-rtc@...r.kernel.org" <linux-rtc@...r.kernel.org>,
"linux-iio@...r.kernel.org" <linux-iio@...r.kernel.org>,
"linux-i2c@...r.kernel.org" <linux-i2c@...r.kernel.org>,
"linux-renesas-soc@...r.kernel.org"
<linux-renesas-soc@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: RE: [PATCH v7 0/4] Extend device_get_match_data() to struct bus_type
> Subject: RE: [PATCH v7 0/4] Extend device_get_match_data() to struct
> bus_type
>
>
> Hi Andy Shevchenko,
>
> Thanks for the feedback.
>
> > Subject: Re: [PATCH v7 0/4] Extend device_get_match_data() to struct
> > bus_type
> >
> > On Fri, Aug 11, 2023 at 02:46:10PM +0000, Biju Das wrote:
> > > > Subject: Re: [PATCH v7 0/4] Extend device_get_match_data() to
> > > > struct bus_type On Fri, Aug 11, 2023 at 01:27:36PM +0000, Biju Das
> wrote:
> > > > > > On Thu, Aug 10, 2023 at 09:05:10AM +0000, Biju Das wrote:
> >
> > ...
> >
> > > > > > I'm good with this approach, but make sure you checked the
> > > > > > whole kernel source tree for a such.
> > > > >
> > > > > Checking against 16 is too short I guess??
> > > > >
> > > > > drivers/iio/imu/inv_mpu6050/inv_mpu_iio.h has 18 enums.
> > > >
> > > > So, what does prevent us from moving that tables to use pointers?
> > >
> > > I think that will lead to ABI breakage(client->name vs id->name)
> > >
> > > match = device_get_match_data(&client->dev);
> > > if (match) {
> > > chip_type = (uintptr_t)match;
> > > name = client->name;
> > > } else if (id) {
> > > chip_type = (enum inv_devices)
> > > id->driver_data;
> > > name = id->name;
> > > } else {
> > > return -ENOSYS;
> > > }
> >
> >
> > It's easy to work around (may be better fix can be found, haven't
> > checked, just what first comes to my mind):
> >
> > match ...
> > name = match->name;
>
> The device_get_match_data()API returns matched data, so we cannot use that
> one here.
>
> Maybe??
>
> /* If enumerated via ID lookup, fix the ABI */ if (!dev_fwnode())
> name = id->name;
Looks this will work.
/* If enumerated via firmware node, fix the ABI */
if (dev_fwnode())
name = client->name
else
name = id->name
Cheers,
Biju
Powered by blists - more mailing lists