linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v3 11/24] iio: accel: kxcjk-1013: Start using chip

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <20241026122605.0ea7188c@jic23-huawei>
Date: Sat, 26 Oct 2024 12:26:13 +0100
From: Jonathan Cameron <jic23@...nel.org>
To: Andy Shevchenko <andriy.shevchenko@...ux.intel.com>
Cc: Jonathan Cameron <Jonathan.Cameron@...wei.com>, Marius Cristea
 <marius.cristea@...rochip.com>, Trevor Gamblin <tgamblin@...libre.com>,
 Jean-Baptiste Maneyrol <jean-baptiste.maneyrol@....com>, Hans de Goede
 <hdegoede@...hat.com>, linux-iio@...r.kernel.org,
 linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Lars-Peter Clausen <lars@...afoo.de>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 11/24] iio: accel: kxcjk-1013: Start using chip_info
 variables instead of enum

On Thu, 24 Oct 2024 22:05:00 +0300
Andy Shevchenko <andriy.shevchenko@...ux.intel.com> wrote:

> Instead of having a enum and keeping IDs as driver data pointers,
> just have a chip_info struct per supported device.
I'm not keen longer term on acpi_type, as the various bits dependent on that
should probably be done via optional callbacks in the kx_chipset_info
structure, but this is a sensible intermediate step.

I see the chipset one goes away later hence no comment on that.

I did a bit of white space massaging whilst applying this.
Hopefully that won't make me mess up applying the following patches.

>  enum kxcjk1013_mode {
> @@ -425,27 +472,28 @@ static int kiox010a_dsm(struct device *dev, int fn_index)
>  }
>  
>  static const struct acpi_device_id kx_acpi_match[] = {
> -	{"KXCJ1013", KXCJK1013},
> -	{"KXCJ1008", KXCJ91008},
> -	{"KXCJ9000", KXCJ91008},
> -	{"KIOX0008", KXCJ91008},
> -	{"KIOX0009", KXTJ21009},
> -	{"KIOX000A", KXCJ91008},
> -	{"KIOX010A", KXCJ91008}, /* KXCJ91008 in the display of a yoga 2-in-1 */
> -	{"KIOX020A", KXCJ91008}, /* KXCJ91008 in the base of a yoga 2-in-1 */
> -	{"KXTJ1009", KXTJ21009},
> -	{"KXJ2109",  KXTJ21009},
> -	{"SMO8500",  KXCJ91008},
> +	{"KIOX0008", (kernel_ulong_t)&kxcj91008_info },
> +	{"KIOX0009", (kernel_ulong_t)&kxtj21009_info },
> +	{"KIOX000A", (kernel_ulong_t)&kxcj91008_info },
> +	/* KXCJ91008 in the display of a yoga 2-in-1 */
> +	{"KIOX010A", (kernel_ulong_t)&kxcj91008_kiox010a_info },
> +	/* KXCJ91008 in the base of a yoga 2-in-1 */
> +	{"KIOX020A", (kernel_ulong_t)&kxcj91008_kiox020a_info },
> +	{"KXCJ1008", (kernel_ulong_t)&kxcj91008_info },
> +	{"KXCJ1013", (kernel_ulong_t)&kxcjk1013_info },
> +	{"KXCJ9000", (kernel_ulong_t)&kxcj91008_info },
> +	{"KXJ2109",  (kernel_ulong_t)&kxtj21009_info },
> +	{"KXTJ1009", (kernel_ulong_t)&kxtj21009_info },
> +	{"SMO8500",  (kernel_ulong_t)&kxcj91008_smo8500_info },
I'll tweak the spacing on this as well whilst here.
You did one end effectively, might as well do the other.

>  	{ }
>  };
>  MODULE_DEVICE_TABLE(acpi, kx_acpi_match);

> @@ -1711,22 +1739,21 @@ static const struct dev_pm_ops kxcjk1013_pm_ops = {
>  };
>  
>  static const struct i2c_device_id kxcjk1013_id[] = {
> -	{"kxcjk1013", KXCJK1013},
> -	{"kxcj91008", KXCJ91008},
> -	{"kxtj21009", KXTJ21009},
> -	{"kxtf9",     KXTF9},
> -	{"kx023-1025", KX0231025},
> +	{"kxcjk1013",  (kernel_ulong_t)&kxcjk1013_info },
> +	{"kxcj91008",  (kernel_ulong_t)&kxcj91008_info },
> +	{"kxtj21009",  (kernel_ulong_t)&kxtj21009_info },
> +	{"kxtf9", (kernel_ulong_t)&kxtf9_info },
> +	{"kx023-1025", (kernel_ulong_t)&kx0231025_info },
>  	{}
I'm going to tweak the spacing of that whilst we are touching it.